Posted on 12/19/2007 11:36:37 AM PST by SJackson
OK, leave out the whole WMD thing, when was having over 90 attempts to shoot down US jets, attempted assassination of a former President, being a co-conspirator in the first WTC bombing not a threat to our national security? By all other standards, any one of those would be considered an act of war.
Then why did George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (who between them were all either signers and/or authors of the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution) seem to take a different view of the role and duties of the Commander-in-Chief?
Fine, so he voted against Iraq, the majority of both houses of Congress voted differently. Does MoRon Paul think that his vote is the only one that should count?
That's his opinion, and he gets to vote as he wishs.
Clearly then the Authorization was constitutional and his statements such as
“No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.and
“Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
are irrelevant
But Congress Constitutionally authorized force over Paul's vote, so Paul doesn't have to go along?
Ron Paul did vote in favor of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which in turn took us directly to Afghanistan where the terrorists made their home under the Tali-ban. Does this constitute a declaration of war on our part? In this case we were indeed attacked by terrorist on our own soil and our national security is threatened by the same.
Those wacky founders, they just couldn't get everything right.
Then again, maybe when the took the office of President, they ceased to be founders and became neocons.
“Humble foreign policy and not being the Policemen of the world and not killing American troops overseas for failed missions.”
So why didn’t Paul vote to bring the troops home when he had the chance? He didn’t even bother to vote on this one. There is nothing consistent about his record. I’m still waiting for someone to show us what the one thing he has ever accomplished. None of his bills ever went anywhere. He more often than not supports (co sponsors their resolutions) the socialist caucus of congress.
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 608
H RES 571 RECORDED VOTE 18-Nov-2005 11:33 PM QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution BILL TITLE: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately
It was voted down 403 to 3.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml
Ron Paul is an idiot. Ron Paul wants to play nice with Jew haters.
and we would have peace in our time.Not
Washington and Jefferson warned against becoming entangled in other nation’s affairs. None of the forefathers you mentioned was a nut case, either. There is room for genuine debate regarding our role in foreign affairs, presidential powers, and the like.
Ron Paul brings a different perspective, to be sure, but I see nothing in his arguments to make him worthy of the knee-jerk slander that seems to crop up whevever his name is mentioned. Sounds just a like a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth Bush haters.
Yep, Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase (which is clearly not mentioned in the Constitution) just to help out his cronies in "big farming" and they were probably Zionists to boot!
They’re coming to take me away, ha-haaa.
They’re coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa
Let's see, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington declared martial law in certain parts of the country and commanded American troops on American soil to enforce taxes.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both fought undeclared wars off the coast of Africa.
None of the forefathers you mentioned was a nut case, either.
I never said they were, Ron Paul is a nutcase though.
And once Mr. 'Can I get a round of applause here' shows where the Iranians represent a threat to our borders and have declared war on this nation (not a loose band of terrorists, but the Iranian government itself) perhaps Freddie can get the war he so much hopes for.
As that is not the case however the best course of action is to trade with all and maintain conversations with all.
Unless of course someone can explain even in the depths of the Cold War it was possible to trade with and maintain some form of relationship with the Soviet Union and China....
What do you reckon we’d do if foreign military jets entered our airspace? Sit here and look dumb? How close would we let them come before we took action?
Okay. Our jets were over there to protect our ability to purchase oil from the region. Right? Do other countries send their fighters over here to protect their ability to purchase wheat?
Maybe you do not think our country can sustain itself without sending troops into over a hundred other countries. Some people happen to think we are stronger, and smarter, than that.
They did know how to "colonize", put the neocons to shame. I've always thought James Polk has been an underated President given his accomplishments in this regard. I doubt Ron Paul would agree.
Makes me wonder how doctor Paul would treat cancer in a patient, stay out of the organs it invades?
If we agreed to let them fly over based on a signed treaty, we should let them fly over.
Our jets were over there to protect our ability to purchase oil from the region. Right?
No, our jets were there as part of the surrender terms (ok, cessation of hostilities) treaty with Saddam. He agreed to allow them to flow over to enforce the no fly zones and to inspect his so called compliance of banned weapons.
Your attempt to place moral equivalence in the situation is somewhere between sad and frightening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.