It appears I was wrong to trust Lawrence O’Donnell, who should know better, as he is constantly pointing out his Senate experience, but he flat up lied about Paul and others:
John Cole you are so willfully misled:
1. Senate Resolution 85 is non-binding; it DOES NOT have the force of law.
2. It was passed in less than a minute after introduction, with no debate, and only the title about “condemning human rights violations” was read outloud. Here is the transcript:
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 85, which was introduced earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 85) strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 85) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
There was no vote in Congress authorizing our military action in a foreign country. Please read the Constitution. If you are required to obey laws, our country must also live up to its end of the bargain and obey its rules.
Rand never voted for ‘resolution 85’. It was passed on motion ‘without objection’ before Rand could even get back to the floor, wasn’t even read, so no one knew what was in it, and was explained away as ‘nonbinding’. Check out the Congressional Record, only the TITLE mentioning NO military action was read, even, before it was deemed passed. Wonder why they did it like that? Maybe because Rand Paul had been the only one to object to extending the Patriot Act for three years ‘by unanimous consent’ the same way? What sort of ‘representative government’ is this?
So there is that.