[Debate] Someone accusing Ron Paul of being a hypocrite for voting for...

[Reason]

[Debate] Someone accusing Ron Paul of being a hypocrite for voting for this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

Because;

"it was used to invade a sovereign nation"

Thoughts?

[t0rnado]

A sovereign nation that was controlled by the Taliban. I still don't agree with his vote on that though.

[Reason]

Has RP ever made a statement about this?

[InterestedParticipant]

[Debate] Someone accusing Ron Paul of being a hypocrite for voting for this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

Because;

"it was used to invade a sovereign nation"

Thoughts?

First, the legislation was signed by the President on Sep 18th, 2001, so there wasn't a thorough understanding of what had occurred at that time.

Secondly, I see it as RP voting to authorize the Commander in Chief to defend the country.

Here's a relevant clip from the legislation...


IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

In RP's defense, he may not have seen the abuse of the legislation that was forthcoming. But this is my speculation.

Do we know how RP answered the question?

[specsaregood]

I believe his statement was that he voted for the authorization to go after the terrorists behind 9/11, not nation building or to completely topple the taliban.
Also worth noting is that was when he submitted and suggested using the Letters of Marque and Reprisal instead.

[emazur]

Is this the same as the vote to launch the Afghan war? Rand Paul also has said numerous times that he would have voted for that

[disorderlyvision]

I just heard him discuss this the other day. (pretty sure it was a youtube) But he said something like it was worded where he thought the government was going to go after the specific group of "terrorists" , and not be involved in nation building. He then said something about letters of marque and reprisal

[disorderlyvision]

I believe his statement was that he voted for the authorization to go after the terrorists behind 9/11, not nation building or to completely topple the taliban.
Also worth noting is that was when he submitted and suggested using the Letters of Marque and Reprissal instead.


beat me to it...someone got the tube?

[Reason]

I have to admit, I was caught off guard when confronted with this issue.

Would be awesome if Ron Paul had made a statement about this that I could throw back, can't seem to find anything other than the "suggestion about individual letters of mark and reprisal"

[ctiger2]

I'd bet Ron would have rather used Letters of Marque and Reprisal to weed out these terrorists. That's what should have been done... :o

[726f6e7061756c]

YouTube - Ron Paul @ Google - Iraq, Afghanistan, Veitnam - part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqiJe2zFU_w)

about 1:20

[CountryboyRonPaul]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=218

[Reason]

YouTube - Ron Paul @ Google - Iraq, Afghanistan, Veitnam - part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqiJe2zFU_w)

about 1:20


thx for finding this :)

[jmdrake]

Has RP ever made a statement about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?ex=1342843200&en=dacd6d6f05cda897&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq did not come out of nowhere. He was against the first gulf war, the war in Kosovo and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which he called a “declaration of virtual war.” Although he voted after Sept. 11 to approve the use of force in Afghanistan and spend $40 billion in emergency appropriations, he has sounded less thrilled with those votes as time has passed. “I voted for the authority and the money,” he now says. “I thought it was misused.”

Ron Paul is not a pacifist. He subscribes to the "just war" theory. Clearing out a nest of terrorists who just killed 3,000 Americans is about a just as you can get. (Assuming you believe the official story which I did at the time and Ron Paul kinda does.) The problem is we didn't cut off OBL's escape. (Google "jawbreaker tora bora" and "airlift of evil".) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (even the Bush administration admitted that although they clearly tried to give a different impression).

[Bucjason]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?ex=1342843200&en=dacd6d6f05cda897&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11


Neither does Afghanistan now that Bin Laden is gone ,and the Al-Queda camps have been destroyed. Why are we still there???

To keep the Taliban from regaining power?? .....uhhh, isn't that nation building?


By the way, I'm not claiming Ron Paul supports prolonging the war. I'm just making a point.