Strike the anti-Obama sentiment while it is hot

[Nefertiti]

Obama has managed to alienate many of his supporters today with his declaration of his intention to violate Pakistan's sovereignity. Many of those dissatisfied with this turn of events are ripe for hearing the message of Ron Paul. I've been working the Obama main blog on his campaign site the last 20 minutes or so reaching out to people who are dissatisfied and suggesting they check out Ron Paul. I would encourage all of you to find other venues where people who were Obama supporters are posting about their disappointment and spreading the word about the obvious alternative of Ron Paul.

[nullvalu]

Great idea!

[Syren123]

Man did he ever step in it.

If you REALLY want to stoke the flame, direct any lingering Obama heads to his recent article in Foreign Affairs Magazine (the propaganda mechanism of the CFR). Not only is he a warmonger, he's an affirmed globalist as well. People who support him should examine that.

Warmonger, Globalist...what's so different than what we've got NOW?!

Okay yes, Obama is a much better writer and speaker than GWB...but MOST people are so that isn't enough.

[Gee]

Well, if OBL is in Pakistan, I hardly think RP would hesitate to violate their sovereignty to remove him. Granted, I think he'd probably do it without blowing up the whole nation, toppling its regime, and rebuilding it, but I think he'd still probably do something to capture or kill OBL.

[Kregener]

Sure he would.

He would issue Letter of Marque with that $25 million reward currently being offered.

OBL would be toast in 6 months.

[nullvalu]

DIGG - http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Talks_Tough_on_Foreign_Policy_Forbes_com

that article is on top of google news right now

[angelatc]

If you REALLY want to stoke the flame, direct any lingering Obama heads to his recent article in Foreign Affairs Magazine (the propaganda mechanism of the CFR). Not only is he a warmonger, he's an affirmed globalist as well. People who support him should examine that.

.

The progressive socialists are globalist, one-brave-new world types.

Wow! I'm so happy! I pointed this very thing out to a blogger who supported Obama as a peace candidate the other day. If I can remember where it was, I might pop back over there and pont this article out.

[Nefertiti]

Well, if OBL is in Pakistan, I hardly think RP would hesitate to violate their sovereignty to remove him. Granted, I think he'd probably do it without blowing up the whole nation, toppling its regime, and rebuilding it, but I think he'd still probably do something to capture or kill OBL.

Here is how he would handle OBL, by his own words:

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

Chances are that would mean someone not even a US citizen would capture him.

[Keith]

DIGG - http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Talks_Tough_on_Foreign_Policy_Forbes_com

that article is on top of google news right now

Dugg and commented on.

[kalami]

to k1ck1ing, you know they only have to click on your name to look at your digg record

[Syren123]

The progressive socialists are globalist, one-brave-new world types.

Wow! I'm so happy! I pointed this very thing out to a blogger who supported Obama as a peace candidate the other day. If I can remember where it was, I might pop back over there and pont this article out.

Go Angela.

[paulitics]

Whoa, we need to research this first.
Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanastan to remove the Taliban. Why? because we were told by intellience that Al Quada was responsible for 911.
Last I heard, the Pakistan gvt is harboring Al Quada on the border, even MORE guilty than Afghanastan, and they are as strong as in 2001. The neocon government has NOT made a concerted effort to go after Bin Laden. Remember, they let all of his family fly out unhindered, and blocked all other flights so they could escape freely.

This single issue has made a lie out of the war on Bin Laden. Ron paul in a recent interview expressed the Pakistan problem. He called the neocon foreign policy hypocritical for not going after the guy who attacked us. So, he would consider a military option in Pakistan, but not countries like Iran, that are pretty unrelated to this, yet we are continuously bombarded with propoganda.

If Ron Paul would actually make a public statement about this, than this would clear up alot of misconceptions about him being weak on Terror. I don't think it is wise for us to criticise Obama on this issue.

[aravoth]

Whoa, we need to research this first.
Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanastan to remove the Taliban. Why? because we were told by intellience that Al Quada was responsible for 911.
Last I heard, the Pakistan gvt is harboring Al Quada on the border, even MORE guilty than Afghanastan, and they are as strong as in 2001. The neocon government has NOT made a concerted effort to go after Bin Laden. Remember, they let all of his family fly out unhindered, and blocked all other flights so they could escape freely.

This single issue has made a lie out of the war on Bin Laden. Ron paul in a recent interview expressed the Pakistan problem. He called the neocon foreign policy hypocritical for not going after the guy who attacked us. So, he would consider a military option in Pakistan, but not countries like Iran, that are pretty unrelated to this, yet we are continuously bombarded with propoganda.

If Ron Paul would actually make a public statement about this, than this would clear up alot of misconceptions about him being weak on Terror. I don't think it is wise for us to criticise Obama on this issue.

Sure it would. We'd be launching a pre-emptive war on a military dictatorship that has nuclear weapons. I'd say thats a pretty fuggin stupid thing to suggest. (not your post, the comment obama made)

[LibertyEagle]

If you REALLY want to stoke the flame, direct any lingering Obama heads to his recent article in Foreign Affairs Magazine (the propaganda mechanism of the CFR). Not only is he a warmonger, he's an affirmed globalist as well. People who support him should examine that.



Hi. Do you happen to have a link for this?

[Swmorgan77]

Well, if OBL is in Pakistan, I hardly think RP would hesitate to violate their sovereignty to remove him. Granted, I think he'd probably do it without blowing up the whole nation, toppling its regime, and rebuilding it, but I think he'd still probably do something to capture or kill OBL.

He wouldn't necessarily have to. See his "Marque and Reprisals" legislation to go after Bin Laden.

[paulitics]

Here is a recent interview on the topic. http://youtube.com/watch?v=pqOoR90hksE
Pretty clear that he would take a tougher stance on Pakistan since OBL is our sworn enemy and Pakistan is harboring him, even more so than Afghanastan. To hear the counterguments from the neocons that we don't want to upset the muslims, or destabalize the middle east (uhh, isn't that blowback) is appalling that they choose to use it in this situation but not Iraq. Why? Obviously we have our own agenda in regards to the war on terror, and that agenda frightens me.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, and we're FUNDING Pakistan.

[paulitics]

Yeah, and we're FUNDING Pakistan.

Have been for years, and we were funding Al Quada. Perhaps we still are. After all, they are growing stronger by the day and that takes alot of money. Lets just continue to give them more more money and weapons until another attack.

[Gee]

I'm familiar with his letters of marque proposal. The problem is that congress must pass a letter of marque, which I don't think they are going to do. As president, he'd certainly get the authority to go after OBL if he asked for it though.

But I doubt the Pakistani government would care so much if RP sent a few SEAL teams into some mostly-deserted mountains. Thats a lot different from what Dubya did in Afganistan and Iraq.

Do we have any reason to think the Pakistani government is really harboring OBL?

[BarryDonegan]

first of all, a letter of marque and reprisal is a FAR cry from implying that you might put forces in pakistan. putting US forces in Pakistan is an invasion, IF you are Pakistan. same with Afghanistan. the letter of marque and reprisal is essentially a reward on the head of an individual. its not a military action.

i almost cant BELIEVE osama did this. i made a little bloggy about it, because it seems he answered Mike Gravel's question "Who do you wanna nuke".

only, well, at least the neocons pick people with relatively no military. Pakistan has a grown folks military and nukes. Obama needs to hush up before he gets us blasted.

[BarryDonegan]

also for those who are worried about Paul's position, his is clearly a non interventionist foreign policy. he believes in declaring war on sovereign nations who attack us. he does not believe in pursuing military action in Pakistan. he has on a number of occasions, rhetorically asked why the neocons didnt target Pakistan if they were really serious about aggressively fighting terrorists where they are, only to betray their false intentions, not as a suggestion that we pursue military action in Pakistan because of rumors that Osama Bin Ladin might hang out there.

This is a police action to Ron Paul, that police or private security take a stab at, not sovereign nations military forces. attacking pakistan to get bin ladin would be similar to the police firebombing a local bar because a child predator hangs out there.

[dseisner]

Whoa, we need to research this first.
Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanastan to remove the Taliban.


I'm pretty sure RP never voted for a regime change. I think he voted to use military force to go after OBL. I'm sure I've heard him say he did not agree at all with how the President used the funding he voted for.

[Gee]

I'm pretty sure Paul does support going after OBL wherever he is hiding. He speaks about the need to this pretty often. The man orchestrated an attack on our country. I can't remember where, but I believe he did say he'd support sending US forces after OBL in addition to using bounties. "Non-interventionist" doesn't mean you don't go after your enemies, after all.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I think Dr. Paul would first do the marques and second come to the table and talk to Pakistan about turning Bin Laden over...something Bush has not done. If a country continues to shield a known mass murderer, I'd use the CIA to take bin Laden out

[BarryDonegan]

there is a HUGE difference between going after Osama Bin Ladin and making a military action against a nation for not going after him for us.

he has never suggested doing this type of thing against the will of a sovereign nation he is hiding in.

this is what Obama bin Ladin is suggesting.

[BarryDonegan]

also, paul has clearly indicated that a declaration of war against a sovereign nation is necessary for that type of action. he has introduced ideas of non military solutions to finding bin ladin for a reason i.e. the marque and reprisal

[Gee]

there is a HUGE difference between going after Osama Bin Ladin and making a military action against a nation for not going after him for us.

he has never suggested doing this type of thing against the will of a sovereign nation he is hiding in.
I'm relatively sure he has, its similar to what happened in Afghanistan after all. Its not like US forces would engage or attack Pakistani forces, he's believed to be in some mostly-deserted mountains. US reliance on paid domestic forces in Afghanistan is what allowed OBL to escape to begin with.

[Nefertiti]

The part towards the beginning of this speech is relevant to the OBL/Pakistan issue:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm

[BarryDonegan]

"It was said that our efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new governments were not to be part of the agenda."

"The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the "mob"or some international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people"

"The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them."

"Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. Would any of our military efforts in that region be justified? Since none of it would be related to American security, it would be difficult to justify."

"Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with serious renal disease, would he not do everything conceivable for his cause by provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many Muslims as possible?"

"Remember, to bin Laden, martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be more powerful in death than he is in life. "


picked out a few quotes from this article. thanks! this is why he promotes encouraging private citizens to turn over Bin Ladin, rather than complicating the problem by wrecking countries all over sesarching for him.


also in the radio interview earlier in the thread, ron paul DIRECTLY STATES that he feels using either special forces or a marque and reprisal to personally target osama bin ladin is the way to go, not occupying more muslim countries. this is exactly what he states in his tough on terror message in this conversation and in every conversation. he criticizes that bush failed to target bin ladin with his activity after 911, and that Paul is for it, so long as it is TARGETING BIN LADIN with a RIFLE, not using military forces to occupy countries and search for him.

killing him who attacks you is tough on terror.

bumbling around in random sovereign nations with nuclear weapons off intelligence rumors, dragging forces you don't have to budget for it is dumb on terror. Bush proved that one for us quite well.(only with a much less powerful nation)

[Gee]

You can't compare going after OBL, what RP wanted to do and voted to have happen, with a full-scale invasion and regime change. Those are two totally different things. Afganistan's "protection" of OBL was primarily due to his being seen as a hero for helping free their country from the Soviets, and traditional Afgan hospitality. They were largely neutral and uninterested in terrorism. I definitely agree Afganistan did not deserve what happened to them.

You don't have to wreck entire countries to find one guy, and I'm sure when RP voted for the authority to go to war in Afghanistan he did not realize what Bush would do.

[1000-points-of-fright]

How is a letter of marque and reprisal any different from the $25 million bounty on his head now?

Also, How do letters of marque and reprisal work? Are they issued to a specific organization and only them? Or are they issued as a general bounty and whoever does the job first gets the cash? Seems to me that would lead to competition with bounty hunters and mercenary groups sabotaging each others efforts in order to get the money themselves.

Does the US government provide logistical and intelligence support or are these guys on their own? The government hiring mercenaries doesn't seem much different from using the military. Either way it's the US doing it. Plus, any unethical tactics used by our proxies will still reflect on the US.

If anyone has specifics on how letters of marque and reprisal work, please explain.

[Gee]

There isn't a large difference. They were typically given to privateers to authorize things that would have otherwise been considered acts of piracy or war. Letters of marque, for example, could be issued that would authorize private groups to kill, capture, or seize the goods of al Qaeda. The private groups would then be operating under the sanction of the government which issued the letters of marque.

[Broadlighter]

I read the article. It seems that Obama wants to take the same approach as John Kerry in fighting a 'smarter war' on terror. Problem is, Obama doesn't seem to understand the role of the presidency with regard to Constitutional restraint on the use of military force. He talks from the standpoint that he would exercise that power in a similar way as George W. Bush.

Ron Paul wants to observe those Constitutional restraints when it comes to applying military force. I think this is one of the BIG differences between Ron Paul and just about every other Republican and most of the Democrats running for President.

[rg123]

The sad part is that Obama is getting attention on the MSM. When Ron has not only once submitted the bill but has submitted the bill again to handle OBL and yet other than a hit piece from politico not one word has been said to the effect by the MSM, Radio, and other news outlets about a lone candidate in either party
who is actually submitting legislation to get OBL. Congress has an award of 50 million when we spend 12 billion a month to fund the war. Surely an award of 2-3
billion will inspire someone with a letter of Marq. Again this is a deliberte attempt to keep Ron's ideas and legislation censored from the public eye. You will never see any MSM outlet cover this stuff not cspan either as they are just as corrupt as the MSM. Their is also no mention of HR 2605 to stop the war.



Here is a copy of the bill Ron submitted last week.
110th CONGRESS
H. R. 3216
To authorize the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 27, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs


A BILL
To authorize the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL.

The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

SEC. 3. SECURITY BOND REQUIRED.

No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President under this Act without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.

[1000-points-of-fright]

SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL.

The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

OK. So essentially we're hiring mercenaries to go into a sovereign nation and kill or capture people. If they are acting on our behalf and are in our employ, the US government is still responsible for whatever happens. May as well use the military.

Other than it being cheaper and the mercs doing it voluntarily, I really don't see the difference.

[rg123]

It doesn't mean that it has to be Blackwarter or an American they would drop thousands of leaflets also to whereas anyone can do it. It can be anyone I think friend or foe it also could motivate fighting amongst themselves. I could be wrong but I think thats how it works

[bbachtung]

OK. So essentially we're hiring mercenaries to go into a sovereign nation and kill or capture people. If they are acting on our behalf and are in our employ, the US government is still responsible for whatever happens. May as well use the military.

Other than it being cheaper and the mercs doing it voluntarily, I really don't see the difference.

Apparently, letters of marque and reprisal are intended to provide legal "cover" to people who would ordinarily be considered pirates under international law. Ron Paul noted in his press release on October 11, 2001, the benefit in utilizing letters of marque and reprisal is "when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy."

As you pointed out, those who were granted letters of marque and reprisal would be volunteers knowing what they were getting themselves into, and would have the freedom to move about at will (most soldiers can't just detach themselves from their fellow soldiers and go off on bin Laden hunts), as well as a profit motive.

[Nefertiti]

I think Dr. Paul would first do the marques and second come to the table and talk to Pakistan about turning Bin Laden over...something Bush has not done. If a country continues to shield a known mass murderer, I'd use the CIA to take bin Laden out

Dr. Paul has said that he disagrees with the CIA engaging in assassinations if I recall correctly. Perhaps he thinks the constitution does not authorize the CIA to do this. As marque and reprisal involves private citizens, not government agents.

Now, I don't know how Pakistan would regard those people. If you went into Pakistan and took out OBL, would the Pakistani government under its own laws have the right to punish you since you did kill someone on their soil? That's what I don't understand.

[Keith]

to k1ck1ing, you know they only have to click on your name to look at your digg record

That was me. The comment was not meant to be misleading, but I can see how it could be taken that way. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I was really thinking about voting for Obama a few months ago after I read his book, but before I learned about Ron Paul. I added the comment below on Digg for further clarification so that people would not think I was trying to trick them into voting for Ron Paul.

"I should probably clarify that it has been a few months since I was thinking about voting for Obama. The fascination wore off soon after I finished his book."

[max]

Osama was killed in 2001....there have been no valid videos of him since..


also, there was never a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with 9/11

[Nefertiti]

Osama was killed in 2001....there have been no valid videos of him since..


also, there was never a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with 9/11

I'm a historian, and I can tell you that the biggest mistake people make when it comes to historical events is to argue that something didn't exist or didn't happen based on lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is not proof itself.

And wasn't his own admission evidence enough?

[bygone]

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.