Senator Rand Paul Slams Obama, Says Only Congress has the Authority to Take Us to War!

‘One generation cannot bind another generation to perpetual war!’ – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

On Monday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the pages of TIME Magazine Online to excoriate President Barack Obama for his despotic use of our military in conflicts across the planet throughout his entire presidency. Senator Paul begins by noting the flood of criticism that the previous president, George W. Bush, faced from liberals for his use of our military. Paul then quickly points out that President Obama has gone far beyond President Bush in every measurable way when it comes to use of our military power. The same liberals who mockingly derided President Bush as a “warmonger” have fallen silent about the many abuses perpetrated by President Obama.

It’s a perfect example of the hypocrisy so prevalent on the left, but more than that, Senator Paul argues that this militaristic bent is destroying our Republic. The answer, he argues, is returning control of our military authority to Congress – where it was always meant to be.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

From TIME Online:

This president has now been at war longer than any other in history. That must end.

“President Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush,” the New York Times reported this month. “On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.”

In his last months in office, you would think President Obama might be trying to wind down these seemingly never ending and growing series of wars. You would be wrong. 

President Obama said he was ending the War in Afghanistan, but he had to expand it before he could end it; and yet it has not ended. Together Bush and Obama have now spent more than $100 billion on nation-building in Afghanistan, and still many doubt the ability of the Afghan government to stand on its own two feet.

While our bridges crumble here at home, President Obama continues the cycle of bombing and then replacing their infrastructure.

He brags of ending the Iraq war, but the war there hasn’t ended. The enemy has just changed names. Combat troops have slowly grown.

Air wars and “advisors” are now in Syria and Iraq. Last month the President declared he was sending 250 Special Operations Forces to Syria. Who goes to war with 250 soldiers?

President Obama spent $500 million to train 250 Syrian “moderates.” He proceeded to send ten of them into battle and they were captured within ten minutes and stripped of millions of dollars in weapons. Who sends ten soldiers to war?

“Mr. Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and spent his years in the White House trying to fulfill the promises he made as an antiwar candidate,” the New York Times continued, will “have a longer tour of duty as a wartime president than Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon or his hero Abraham Lincoln.”

Remember “change?” Remember a candidate who said, “Yes we can?”

Well, no, Mr. President, you didn’t…

 

Read the Rest of Senator Paul’s Brilliant Piece at TIME Online.

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

eaglerising

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend