Debunking: Rand Paul on ISIS response by Ashley Killough, CNN

Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Rand Paul declared the war against ISIS "illegal" in a new opinion piece Monday, urging conservatives to speak out against President Barack Obama's decision not to seek congressional authorization for military action against the terrorist group. [What a "real" journalist would do here is provide facts about whether or not this claim made by Rand Paul, who has a history of being proud to admit that he lies, is valid.]

 
"This war is now illegal. It must be declared and made valid, or it must be ended," the Kentucky Republican wrote in an op-ed published Monday by the Daily Beast. [She didn't do what she should have after the first paragraph, think there's much hope she's going to do it now that she doubled-down on the claim?]

 
The U.S. began airstrikes in Iraq in early August and in Syria in September, citing a 2001 measure known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as the president's legal basis for going after terrorist threats. [Should we assume that she knows all about that measure and believes we do, too, or that she's just too lazy to give it even a teeny-weeny bit of explanation?]

 
Paul cites the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in stressing his long-held position that all military action must be approved by Congress. The exception is when a situation is considered urgent. In that case, a president has 60 days to get authorization after military action. If there's no approval from Congress, the president has 30 days to end the mission. [Wait. Isn't 2001 after 1973?]

 
Rand Paul plants feet between both sides of foreign policy debate(.)
[In other words, he says what he thinks the audience he's in front of at the moment wants to hear?}

 
While Paul said he doesn't think the War Powers Resolution specifically applies to the ISIS situation -- because the U.S. had not been attacked -- he notes that even if it did, the president's time would be up. [Probably should have ended this sentence after 'Paul said he doesn't think', since the rest doesn't really matter. He either knows positively and owns his statement, or he shouldn't be quoted and given media space.]

 
"Taking military action against ISIS is justified. The president acting without Congress is not," he wrote, reiterating a stance he's held since September. [Congratulations, Dangerous Dweeb, on holding a stance this long. That's surely a record for you.] This fall Paul has described the airstrikes in Syria as appropriate action but said Obama's method for doing so was "unconstitutional." [Isn't it ridiculous when a disastrous, dangerous, uncertified doctor who believes the 1^st amendment gives him the right to lie and the right to deny others freedom from his religious beliefs, and the second amendment gives his militia buddies the right to overthrow a legitimately elected President tries to pretend he knows more about the constitution than his President, who is a constitutional lawyer? Come on, wannabe-journalist, you didn't write the op-ed, the least you can do is debunk it or add some substance to the fluff piece you're peddling.]
The op-ed comes as Paul, who's seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2016, has been trying to shed his isolationist image yet maintain his libertarian-leaning roots. [Shoot. You tried to be original but that's really just a bunch of nothing.]

 
In the new op-ed, he specifically reached out to conservatives, saying they "they should end their conspicuous silence about the president's usurpation of Congress' sole authority to declare war." [Is blowing air up their asses really how you reach out to conservatives?]

 
Paul blasts Obama as arrogant 'autocrat' [I've seen other kids do this. Not sure which would be the appropriate punctuation so leave it blank – or, if you are a die-hard right-winger you might try a row of commas or exclamation points.)

 
He suggested conservatives are being hypocritical in their criticism of Obama by lambasting him for acting alone through executive actions but staying quiet when he authorizes military action without approval. [The master of hypocrisy has spoken!]

 
"Conservatives who blast the president for ignoring the separation of powers on immigration display a fatal inconsistency by embracing unlimited war-making powers," he wrote. [Why all of these once-sentence paragraphs. You know something about crap apples, I'll bet.]

 
Paul: Washington's 'barnacled enablers' push for constant war [. There you go. I have plenty of extra periods so I'll lend you one of mine. Did he borrow 'barnacled enablers' from a movie line? Someone want to point out that the push for constant war comes from his party, because I'm positive the author of this article isn't going to, even if she knows that?]
His piece comes as a report from Politico lists new details about his all-but-certain presidential campaign. The report says he would likely headquarter his campaign in Louisville, Kentucky, and would move forward with a 2016 re-election bid for the Senate on top of a presidential run. [I don't want this pathetic, dangerous liar in my city. This warning might be the only useful information in this entire article about someone else's article.]

 
Paul, who's attempting to sharpen his foreign policy brand, also raises questions about Hillary Clinton's physical stamina, as well we as her record as secretary of state and her involvement in Libya. [And this grammar-nazi, media watch-dog has enjoyed raising questions about the lack of mental stamina of both Rand Paul and the writer who either knows very little about him or is too lazy to bother typing it.]

 
Even believing that CNN was just a baby-step away from being on the same level as FOX, this surprised me. We deserve better than this from people who stick the word news in their titles. I encourage everyone to tweet your thoughts about this piece to @killoughCNN.