CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript - Syria

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Senator Paul, if you were president of the United States -- and I know you're thinking about becoming president one of these days, but if you were president now and you got a report from your intelligence community that hundreds of people were gassed, were killed by chemical weapons, thousands injured, on August 21st, what would you do about that?

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Well, I think it's incumbent to always obey the Constitution. The rule of law is something our country's founded on. And I would ask Congress to come together and we would debate whether or not it's in our national security interests to be involved.

I think it's horrific, you know, when civilians are killed. But civilians have been killed on both sides of this war. Horrific things have happened. You know, there have been images of Islamic rebels eating the hearts of their opponent. So really I don't think there's a lot of good on either side of this war.

But the main thing is I agree with Barack Obama of 2007 who said that no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of Congress.

BLITZER: Well, you know that ever since that 1973 War Powers Act became the law, a lot of presidents, Democratic presidents, Republican presidents, they launched military action without formal congressional authority, whether it was Ronald Reagan in Grenada, or George H.W. Bush in Panama or Bill Clinton in Kosovo.

So if the president were to launch military strikes against Syria right now, he'd be following their examples.

PAUL: Yes. Bad examples are not always good examples to follow. You know, if you look at the War Powers Act, it says explicitly that the only exception to Congress giving you authority is an imminent attack. And the president seemed to understand this as a senator. So did Joe Biden as a senator as well.

They both were very explicit that you have to be under imminent attack or, actually, in Biden's case, he said it was an impeachable offense. So he believed very strongly about this as a senator. I believe very strongly that the Constitution was intended to separate the powers.

You know, Madison said that the executive is the power most likely to go to war so that we vested the power to declare war in Congress.

BLITZER: In an article you wrote for CNN.com, you wrote this, I'll put it up on the screen. You said, "America's wars must be debated by Congress, declared constitutionally and fought only for the interests and security of the United States. They should never be fought to save face."

All right, so what do you mean by that when you say save face? Because the implication is what as far as the president is concerned?

PAUL: I think some may feel and the president may be one who feels that he's losing his international power or acclaim if he doesn't follow -- he said there was a red line with chemical weapons and he feels incumbent to act. But the thing is just to act to save face is not a strategic objective.

He's already pre-announced that if he does attack, he's going to do it in a very limited fashion and he's not going to be for regime change. To me this sort of sounds like we're not going to win. He's for stalemate.

When I've had private conversations with the administration, that's what I hear. They're not for victory for either side. They're for equalizing the battle and having stalemate. But I see it in personal perspective. I have three sons. I don't see sending one of my sons to war or your son to war to fight for stalemate.

I think this should be a clear-cut strategic objective that helps the United States. And we should know that whoever wins the war, whoever we're supporting, will be a friend of the United States. I'm not certain that either side or any of the multiple sides of this war will ultimately be a friend to the United States. BLITZER: You know, you have disagreements among some of your Republican colleagues, Republican Senator Bob Corker, for example, a key member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He said after being briefed by the administration, he says he now supports what he calls surgical proportional military strikes. So why is he wrong and you're right?

PAUL: Well, I would ask the question, what is the strategic objective? Is it simply to say shame on you for launching and using chemical weapons? I would like to know who used the chemical weapons. In all likelihood it probably was the Syrian government. But it really isn't to their advantage. It's actually more to the advantage of the rebels to have launched this attack because the whole world now is uniting against Assad.

I would want to know, though, would the surgical strikes that are favored, would they somehow eliminate chemical weapons and stop him from using these again? If it's not regime change, it may well incite the Russians to become more involved, the Iranians to become more involved. It may well incite gas attacks on Tel Aviv or Israel.

What happens then? Will Israel feel restrained this time the way they did in the Gulf War? Or will Israel respond in not just a proportional fashion but an overwhelming fashion to now obliterate as much of Iran's military capacity if Iran gets involved? There's a lot of unknowns about this.

And, you know, Eisenhower said that when the violence begins, you can throw out all your plans. But you certainly have to think about before you begin offensive actions what the possible ramifications are if this spins out of control.

BLITZER: I just want to be precise, Senator. Are you leaving open the possibility, albeit remotely, that perhaps the rebels were responsible for this chemical gas attack as opposed to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad?

PAUL: I've seen no evidence on either side. I have seen news reports that says the rebels may well have access to chemical weapons. I have seen no evidence from our intelligence committee -- that's the other thing about this. Should we go to war without the president coming before a joint session of Congress, presenting the case and showing the intelligence?

We've been misled before. In Iraq we were misled by the intelligence. Even at the various high levels of government the intelligence was massaged, I believe, to try to instigate and get us into the war in Iraq.

I don't want that to happen again. We should have a more deliberate evaluation of the information before we go to war.

BLITZER: Well, the war in Iraq there was resolutions passed by both the Senate and the House. And some of the other examples I gave, Ronald Reagan and Grenada, for example, no resolution passed. And very quickly, did he, Ronald Reagan or President George H.W. Bush in Panama, did they violate the Constitution by sending troops in without formal congressional authorization?

PAUL: Well, the Constitution doesn't specify between small wars and big wars. I think that we've become -- through the War Powers Act and through our custom, we have come to believe and I do believe that the president has the right to stop and repulse imminent attacks. But really anything else -- when we were attacked in Pearl Harbor, FDR came to a joint session of Congress the next morning, and we got a Declaration of War.

When we were attacked on 9/11, George Bush did come to Congress and ask for a use of authorization of force. So I think it really is best and the country's most united when we try to stick to the Constitution and when we try to have the people involved through their representatives.

BLITZER: Senator Paul, thanks very much for coming in.

PAUL: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source