He isn't just wrong about Iraq... he's wrong about Afghanistan too. And "nobody's perfect" can't even come close to summing up just how terribly wrong he is about these things.

It is possible I'm being too kind to him.

He is spot on about Race and the Drug war.

Ron Paul is 100% Right on Iraq and Afghanistan.

First, Ron Paul supported going after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Second, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and they had no WMDs. For all the talk about the "terrorist training camps" in Iraq, how come we never hear about the CIA terrorist training camps that trained Osama bin Laden (and others) in the 1980s when we wanted them to fight the Soviets?

Third, When Ron Paul said the terrorists targeted us, because we had been over there, he was laying the blame squarely at the feet of the Isamofascists. When someone commits a crime and the police look for the motive, they use that motive to help them find the guilty party, or prove that person is guilty. Our troops in Saudi Arabia, and our bombing and sanctions in Iraq are all uniquely muslim motives.

Faux Snooze distorted Ron Paul's words, and tried to make it seem he blamed America, but that is not what he said. Ron Paul was laying out the motive for the attacks - a motive that identifies the guilty parties as muslim extremists.

Our war in Iraq is disasterous for two reasons:

1) Most importantly, it shreds our Constitution. The war was not properly declared by Congress, instead they fobbed off their duty, and transferred the responsibility to the executive branch, which Congress is not authorized to do under any provision in the Constitution.

2) The occupation of Iraq is providing incentive for more Jihadists to join Al Qaeda. The longer we are over there, the more likely it is that someone will want to come over here and seek retirbution. We are less safe. Those who say the terrorists will follow us home are the same ones who said if Vietnam went communist, then all of SE asia would follow suit. It didn't happen then, and it won't happen now.

Later.

Kevin,

The only reason you need to know for 9/11 was the loss of Andalusia and the Koran.

As to Saddam. He had been at war with us for 12 years shooting at our aircraft. Time to put him away.

BTW you do know he was implicated in the WTC bombing don't you? I think Clinton was too patient with him. He left it for Bush to finish the job.

Kevin,

Congress keeps funding the war.

That has got to tell you something.

Kevin,

You might be interested in Michael Totten's Peace Corps with Muscle

M. Simon,

If the "only reason" for 9/11 was the loss of Anadulsia and the Koran, then why didn't Osama bin laden attack Spain or Portugal?

Yes, I did know that Iraq was *implicated* in the WTC bombing, I also know it has never been proven. But even if it was, it would only be another prime example of the principle of blowback.

Gulf war I was not a declared war either, and so you now see how these undeclared wars to enforce UN resolutions only get us in trouble. There never was any reason for the US to get involved in the Iraq / Kuwait conflict in the first place. Nothing in that region was worth 1 drop of our soldier's blood, nor 1 dime of our national treasure.

That whole Iraq / Kuwait conflict was ignited by April Glaspie when she told Saddam Hussein: "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

So you we can see that the 1993 WTC bombing, if it was associated with Iraq at all, is more blowback from our flawed foreign policies.

As for Congress continuing to fund the Iraq war, all that tells me is that the democrats (who are in the majority and could stop the bills if they chose to) are playing political games with our soldier's lives. They seek to prolong the war, so as to win the election next Nov.

Later.

Kevin,

Your #1 mistake is to believe that there are perfect foreign policies with no blowback.

If that was the case then why did the Founders have a War Dept? Wouldn't a State Dept. have been sufficient?

Why did Jefferson attack the Jihadis in his day? Were they attacking the USA?

I was a hard core Libertarian once. Became Secty/Treas of our local club. I've heard it all. 9/11 changed my mind.

It doesn't matter if they have legit grievances or it is all a fantasy in their heads.

Some one in the ME needed the shit kicked out of them. Saddam, who put women and children in mass graves was as good a place to start as any. It has the military advantage of central location so the next sumabitch is an easier target.

It is the way the world actually works. There are still alpha males out there who only know the law of the jungle. A taste of cold steel often sobers them up. If not jam it down their throats.

IT'S HARD TO TALK TO SHEEP

Darla,

Thank you. I took the liberty of converting your comment into a clickable link since we do not allow images in comments.

Very nice BTW. I may use it myself in a post if you have no objection.

Many people are going to vote for Ron Paul. Not because they agree with 100% of his positions, but because they are tired of voting for liars.

I agree with his position on the War on Drugs, gun owernship, Health care, taxes, states rights, property rights, no regualtion of the internet, and 'Free Trade' aggreements.

I don't know if I a agree Roe vs. Wade should be thrown out, but I am VERY ok with leaving social/moral issues (lawmaking) with the states.

As far as Ron Paul's view on military engagement...non-intervention is smart and constitutional. Even though Ron Paul didn't agree with the Iraq 'war', he still tried to get congress to Declare It. He takes his oath to uphold the consitutional seriously.

Thats exactly what we need in a leader.

M. Simon,

There is no perfect foreign policy, you are correct. Ron Paul isn't a pacifist, and he isn't suggesting we don't need a military. If you want Ron Paul to fight a war, all you ahve to do is get congress to declare it, then the president can fight it with everyhting he has.

Jefferson didn't attack the Jihadis of his day (Barbary Pirates) militarily, he issued letters of Marque and Reprisal, which is exactly the legislation that Ron Paul introduced after the 9/11 attacks.

"Some one in the ME needed the shit kicked out of them. Saddam, who put women and children in mass graves was as good a place to start as any. It has the military advantage of central location so the next sumabitch is an easier target."

That's fine M, go find dragons abroad and slay them - Just have the Congress declare the war first. That's all I'm saying.

It is disengenuous to say the least to suggest that Ron Paul is a pacifist.

I would suggest that this kind of "alpha male", primate politics is exactly the kind of thing that Jesus was talking about when he suggested loving your enemies. otherwise, you have to ask yourself the question "Who would Jesus bomb?"

Later

The Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. It does not say military action requires a declaration of war.

All kinds of laws and regulations permitting a curtailment of civil liberties go into effect with a declaration of war.

In any case. Congress can cut off funds at any time.

Think of our war with the USSR. Was a declaration of war necessary? Our war with the Islamic fascists is a little hotter. It is not an all out effort. Why do we have to declare war to use the military long term?

Did our intervention in Hati require a declaration of war? If so why wasn't it done?

From the wiki:

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.

===

Let us look at history

1812 - US vs Brits
1846 - US vs Mexico
1898 - US vs Spain
1917 - WW1
1941 - WW2

What happened to the War with the North African jihadis in 1801? Didn't Jefferson know his Constitution? Congress put up the money for warships and sailors. And don't forget the Marines.

There is no precident for Requiring a declaration of war.

Sheesh.

You would think Libertarians would know history better than evidenced here.

From the wiki:

On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

The USS Enterprise defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli, after a fierce but one-sided battle on August 1, 1801. With none of her crew being injured, Enterprise released the battered pirate in shame into Tripoli under a single old sail.

The American navy went unchallenged in the sea, and as yet the question remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with an increase in military force and deployment of many of the navy's best ships to the region throughout 1802. USS Argus, USS Chesapeake, USS Constellation, USS Constitution, USS Enterprise, USS Intrepid, USS Philadelphia and USS Syren all saw service during the war under the overall command of Commodore Edward Preble.

Throughout 1803, Preble set up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets.

===

Really. History is not hard in the internet age. BTW I like the privateer angle. Congress didn't seem to go for it.

BTW I was honored to be aboard a US Frigate in support of the USS Enterprise CVAN-65.

It's interesting - but somehow the guy turns out right on just about everything. And he doesn't care who he offends - he says what he thinks. As President, at least you know you can trust him - can't say that about anyone else.

M,

The Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. It does not say military action requires a declaration of war.

All kinds of laws and regulations permitting a curtailment of civil liberties go into effect with a declaration of war.

In any case. Congress can cut off funds at any time

Our Constitution is one of enumerated powers. That means anything that isn't authorized is forbidden. I think it is the straying from this principle, more than any other, which has landed this country in the mess that it is in (on all fronts)

Since the Constitution does not enumerate any war declaring powers for the president, nor does it allow for Congress to transfer it's authority to the president, such actions are ill-adivesd at best, and blatanly unconstitutional (or extra-constituional if you prefer) at worst.

I have a lot to do today, so I can't get to your other points. I will answer them.

Later.

Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify".

Sounds like an AUMF to me. Which served Constitutionalist Jefferson well enough.

But hey. If Bush screwed it up all Congress has to do is cut off funds. Heck they can even impeach and convict him for not following orders.

Congress has enough power to correct the situation. Yet nothing is done. I assume that the majority approves.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either
(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

AUMF Iraq [pdf]

Looks like all the "t"s crossed and "i"s dotted to me.

Quit feeding the Ronulans and they will go away.

Even as someone who was a LP member for years (before they inexplicably opposed the liberation of Iraq) I can't vote for Ron Paul. The president has a few enumerated duties:

1: Commander in Chief
2: Pardons and Clemency
3: Treaties and foreign relations
4: Appointments
5: Advise and inform Congress

I'm sorry, folks, but ronpaul2008.com has shown himself to be utterly and completely incompetent on #1 (number freaking one) and hasn't shown any promise on #3. Considering that those would be 90% of his time if he stuck to enumerated duties, I can't support him as president, no matter how good a libertarian he is.

And I won't feed the Ronulans anymore. I might drop back in to snark, but I'll try to avoid the temptation.

Ron Paul represents the best hope of reestablishing this county back to Constitutional government and representation. Unfortunately, there is a very large corporate and Federal Reserve banking infrastructure which will fight tooth and nail against any deconstruction of the status-quo.

I firmly belive we are likely, unable to fully “mend” the Constitutional cancers that have affixed themselves to the holes and amendments we have allowed to be inflicted by our legislators and Executive orders that emulate a drive-up window at McDonalds. However how painful, a revolution must accompany the next changes in our government to de-scale and reestablish our federal, state and local governments to their proper and legitimate place.

If we are going to be a third world country in the next 15 - 20 years, let’s do it with some dignity and show them our system of government will not be another flash-in-the-pan experiment that can be bought by international entities and markets….

Fact: This country has been taken over by phonies and liars and corrupt bankers who control Mainstream Media. They operate through front groups like The Council on Foreign Relations....They don't want to lose their stranglehold and they see Ron Paul as a Major threat #1. Of course, they won't admit this publicly, but in their secret meetings they are plotting their next move. They must do something before they lose their power..... they thought they had this election neatly sewn up with the majority of candidates on both parties being C.F.R. puppets... they realize maybe they have overstacked the deck, now the deck looks phony and suspicious (it does) point this out to any person with half a brain and the C.F.R.. goose is cooked. Here is a brief description of the C.F.R. ..

The goals of the Council on Foreign Relations are best described by its very own members.

Bill Clinton's Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley says in his book Tragedy & Hope: "The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and One World rule established."

Mr. Quigley is only different from Bill Clinton, George Bush and the rest of them in the fact that he thinks they shouldn't try to hide this any more.

These groups brag and laugh about how America's two-party system allows for both groups to be controlled at the highest level but still operate like bitter rivals.

As Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to "throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of extreme shifts in policy.".

Controlling Washington elite allowed private central banks to " dominate the political system... ...and economy of world as a whole" and implement a new system of "feudalist fashion" through "secret agreements". Although he believes the CFR's intentions should be more public, Quigley understands the average person doesn't understand feudalism or serfdom and will never read his book.

Allright, now that you know what the C.F.R. is up to here's a list of 2008 Presidential Candidates that are members of the Council on Foreign Relations:

Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich

Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

Dr. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that strives to return us to governmental accountability under we the people, not to mention he actually follows his oath of office.

For freedom,
RonPaul2008.com