Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz leading the fight against U.S. involvement in Syria

We've spent a fair amount of time discussing the possibility of U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war. It's simply a disaster waiting to happen. Whether we decide to send guns, money, or actual troops, it doesn't really matter. We have no true ally in the fight, it's none of our business, and the insanity of arming rebels who are backed, and often controlled, by Al Qaeda should be self-evident.

Yet we still seem to be on a path that will have us supporting, or engaging in, another prolonged, un-winnable, conflict. Senators, like John "wacko bird" McCain, are pounding the war drums with little regard to goals, exit strategies, or costs. Their knee-jerk reaction is to squander blood and treasure in a battle they have no business fighting. Fortunately, we have a few Senators who can see this and they're trying to head off a potential military quagmire. Enter the usual conservative suspects. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz are trying desperately to stop the Obama administration from involving the U.S. in Syria. Since their supposed Republican allies are largely ignoring them, they've brought a few Democrats along for the ride.

---

First up, let's take a look at Ted Cruz, addressing the Senate Thursday. This is a great speech - one which indicates Senator Cruz has a much stronger grasp of the conflict than, say, a certain Senator who recently sneaked across the Syrian border for a meet-and-greet. Cruz suggests a simple rule, which should be a no-brainer to virtually everyone in government: "Don't give weapons to people who hate us. Don't give weapons to people who want to kill us."

Meanwhile, Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee were spearheading a new piece of legislation that would prevent ldquo;the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities" from any action which would support "directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual." According to Senator Paul, "The President's unilateral decision to arm Syrian rebels is incredibly disturbing - considering what little we know about whom we are arming. Engaging in yet another conflict in the Middle East with no vote or Congressional oversight compounds the severity of this situation. The American people deserve real deliberation by their elected officials before we send arms to a region rife with extremists who seek to threaten the U.S. and her allies." The new bill is a bi-partisan affair. In addition to Paul and Lee, it's co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Udall (NM) and Chris Murphy (CT). The real question is, "Where is the rest of the GOP?" It's easy to understand that Democrats are unwilling to vocally oppose their own President's plan, but the Republicans should be out in force over this. Polling shows that the nation is war-weary, tired of endless conflict, and ANY intervention in Syria is deeply unpopular. Even if it weren't, we're a country running on fiscal fumes. We can't, and shouldn't, afford this. Other than angering John McCain, there is absolutely no downside for politicians opposing the Obama administration's involvement in a Mid-East civil war. Kudos to Paul, Lee, Cruz, Udall and Murphy; but why is it that we have so few Republicans willing to stand up to this lunacy?