Rand Paul wants the US to steer clear of Syria, but he says he's not planning any filibusters to make that happen, reports the Huffington Post. Paul today blamed reports to the contrary on a "misrepresentation from the media." Here's the quote from yesterday, via the Washington Post: “I can't imagine that we won't require 60 votes on this. Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster—I’ve got to check my shoes and check my ability to hold my water. And we will see. I haven’t made a decision on that.” After that, the New York Times quoted an aide saying that Paul would indeed filibuster.
That has changed now, apparently. Slate has more on Paul's views: Essentially, he thinks that any US intervention would only make things worse—for the US, for Syrians, for Israel, for the entire region. "I think it's almost inevitable there'll be a second war if Assad falls," he says, adding that it might well result in "radical Islamists" taking over. Paul also tried to use President Obama's own words against him, notes Mediaite: In a proposed resolution, he quoted the then-senator warning the Bush camp not to strike Iran in 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Paul's resolution failed today. (Read more Rand Paul stories.)