Looks like Rand Paul's a thumbs up on war
by digby
But he's adamant, damn it, that the congress should vote to keep it going more often than it has in the past. Here's the king of the process dodge brushing over the fact that he's going to vote for war by pretending that it's more important that he insures that the congress keeps rubber stamping it:
Appearing on CBS “This Morning,” the Kentucky Republican conceded that he has shifted his views in some areas, including on what is an appropriate U.S. response to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. “As world events change, obviously you change your analysis. Five years ago, ISIS wasn’t a threat,” he said, using an alternate name for the terrorist group that has mobilized across much of northern and central Iraq.
Paul acknowledged that his thought process on ISIL has been “influenced” by ISIL’s recent beheadings of U.S. journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines.
[...]
Paul said on Fox News on Monday that because opinions change over time, depending on circumstances, if a vote of whether to go to war against ISIL would make it to Congress, he would vote to “limit the authorization to a time period.”
“I would try to sunset the provision,” Paul said. “I’ve been upset that we voted 15 years ago and people are still using a vote from 15 years ago, so I think if we authorize force or declare war, it should sunset at the end of the year and we should vote again, because I don’t like the idea that one generation can vote to bind another generation to war forever.”
Notice he doesn't say he will vote against it. Indeed, it's fairly clear that he's on board. You see, the really upsetting part of the 15 year war we've been waging is the authorization procedures. The war itself? Not a problem, apparently.
Oh well, there's always Justin Amash.
*It must be pointed out that the DNC is portraying Paul's wavering as proof that he's insufficiently hawkish, so he has that going for him.