Ron Paul and Afghanistan

[Derek]

If you have time, glance through this thread at Sean Hannity's forum:

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=261830

Specifically, note posts no. 24, 26 and 30 on page three of the thread.

I'm honestly at a loss for how to address it, because at best, it seems like a glaring inconsistency. I've tried searching Ron Paul's article archives on his site and the LewRockwell.com site but I've found nothing further that explains this.

Does anyone know of anything indepth written by Dr. Paul concerning his Afghanistan vote? Or why this isn't an inconsistency/contradiction?

[Derek]

Just bumping this

[remaxjon]

If you have time, glance through this thread at Sean Hannity's forum:

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=261830

Specifically, note posts no. 24, 26 and 30 on page three of the thread.

I'm honestly at a loss for how to address it, because at best, it seems like a glaring inconsistency. I've tried searching Ron Paul's article archives on his site and the LewRockwell.com site but I've found nothing further that explains this.

Does anyone know of anything indepth written by Dr. Paul concerning his Afghanistan vote? Or why this isn't an inconsistency/contradiction?

Can you declare war aganist a specific group of people and not a country? I think he would see going after Osama as a police action not a decleration of war. but I'm not sure

[Nash]

I find it hilarious that that same crowd is bashing Paul over the head for being against the war in Iraq but when he supported going after the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden now their attacking him for being inconsistent.

Those people are so delusional it's downright ridiculous.

And yes, it's inconsistent and it's basically political. Paul tried to get the Letter of Marque Bill passed and was laughed at for even suggesting it and was railroaded into supporting the Afghan invasion with the justification that we were attacked.

Yes it's not a declaration of war. So yes it's unconstitutional.

I frankly don't care because well...if Paul doesn't support that he's basically gonna get shot dead in Texas the following day of his "No" vote.

[graystar]

I think he would prefer to use letters of marque ane reprisal for osama.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Methinks Scipio337 is well paid, but that's OK cause The Grim Weeper is better


#28 July 10th, 2007, 1:52 pm
The Grim Weeper
Hannitized Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 83

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by scipio337
Paul voted for Public Law 107-40, AUMF in Afghanistan. It was not a formal Declaration of War = Constitutional.

Later voted against Public Law 107–243, AUMF in Iraq. Not a formal Declaration of War = Unconstitutional.

Paul introduced legislation to declare war on Iraq in October 2002. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war.

See Paul's own musings on the subject:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm


I hope I don't have to break this down any more for you.

----------------------------------------------------------
(TGW)-

I won't pretend to be an expert on this, but as best as I can understand, Paul appears to have reluctantly supported the 2001 "authorization of force," admitting that "to declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex." He also said, on the house floor: "The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we're offered and doing nothing is unthinkable." (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst091701.htm)

Paul continued to stress the letters of marque option as the way to go (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst101501.htm). In March of 2002 he wrote that "we should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks." (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst030402.htm)

By the way, for those of you who accuse Paul of "blaming America," here is a quote from something he wrote in Oct. 2001: "Clearly our efforts in playing policeman to the world have failed to make us more secure. This does not mean that we are in any way responsible for the barbaric acts of Bin Laden or any other fanatical murders who hate the U.S."

You can check out many of his post-9/11 articles here: http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------

(rph)

I can hardly fathom the gall of the nee-cee's; picking on some piddling points while RP supported them in a time of crisis. Sheesh...

m
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
become a delegate, save our country while wearing funny hats...

[Nash]

"Foreign interventionism in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South America via the Reagan Doctrine = Good"

One of the posters claims this and I don't think this is true. Paul supported Reagan but I don't think he supported these particular policies specifically. Particularly Iran/Contra.

[FreedomLover]

They're reaching pretty deep there.

I guess they're kinda forced too, when you have Fred Yawnson and Trudy Julie-Annie running, you really have be on the attack all the time to deflect and dilude youself of the eventual realization that the republican front-runners are not conservative at all.

[spacebetween]

They're reaching pretty deep there.

I guess they're kinda forced too, when you have Fred Yawnson and Trudy Julie-Annie running, you really have be on the attack all the time to deflect and dilude youself of the eventual realization that the republican front-runners are not conservative at all.

LMAO I LOVE "Trudy Julie-Annie!!"