GOP senator blasts Marco Rubio's 'bad argument' about acts of war in live grilling

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) pressed Secretary of State Marco Rubio about whether the military actions taken against Venezuela would be considered an "act of war" if another country took them against the U.S.

"If you reverse the circumstances, it becomes very difficult for these arguments to hold up," Paul told Rubio during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday. "So I would ask you if a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president, and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?"

"So I will point to two things," Rubio replied. "The first is that it's hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about four and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don't recognize as a head of state, indicted in the United States, wanted with a $50 million bounty."

Paul interrupted: "My question would be if it only took four hours to take our president. It's very short. Nobody dies on the other side. Nobody dies on our side. It's perfect. Would it be an act of war?"

"We just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of war," Rubio insisted.

"But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us?" Paul pressed. "Nobody dies, few casualties, they're in and out, boom, it's a perfect military operation. Would that be an act of war? Of course it would be an act of war!"

"So I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one-way argument," the senator added. "One-way arguments that don't rebound, that you can't apply to yourselves that cannot be universally applicable are bad arguments."