I'm posting the comments I've made at www.ace.mu.nu because it's a crapload of typing I did over there in reaction to Ron Paul at the debate. I tried to format it and fix some links that were broken. You can see the whole thread here:
My original comment:
I'm putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict
constructionist" candidate. I don't think for a second that if Congress formally
declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending
troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be
douched.It bothers me that we, as a party, want to send judges to the Supreme
Court who will follow the the Constitution to the letter but when it comes to
electing a President or Congress it doesn't apply.
Posted by: Randolphus at
May 16, 2007 03:48 AM (5naUR)171 I'm putting my
support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist" candidate. I
don't think for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11
against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if
necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be douched.How do you reconcile that
belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his views on
foreign policy very clear last night.
Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007
09:15 AM (R8+nJ)172 I don't care how
many advanced degrees he has, anyone who believes what Paul said last night, is
a moron. And anyone who thinks that Paul believes exactly the opposite of
what he said, is also a moron. People like Paul, and anyone who plays
apologist for him, should be shunned.And don't bother with the fancy latin words
for name-calling. As far as I'm concerned, sometimes it really is that
simple. Truther = Moron.
Posted by: Mob at May 16, 2007 10:19 AM
(f+cPk)173 I don't think
for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida
Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to
whatever craphole needed to be douched.So exactly what do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are unquestionably
open-ended military acts of war against other powers? I did not notice the
Constitution's required form for a declaration of war. Is it in an
appendix maybe?As for the "debate" over whether an MD can be a moron, some ideas
are so amazingly dumb they seem to require advanced degrees for people to
promote them.
Posted by: VRWC Agent, BA, BA, JD at May 16, 2007 12:51 PM
(Z3AmO)Being a strict constructionist doesn't come close to excusing The
Crazy. I'd love to see the federal government return to performing only
those powers allowed for in the Constitution and the end of the 10th Amendment
being ignored, but that's not going to happen overnight, and it sure as hell
isn't going to happen under Ron Paul.
In closing- Fuck You for supporting
this Blame America First Truther douchebag.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 16,
2007 01:16 PM (plsiE)175 How do you
reconcile that belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his
views on foreign policy very clear last night.I believe that since he's a
strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war if it was
declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his duties as
President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't follow
the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is what
makes him appealing.
Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007
01:20 PM (5naUR)176 So exactly what
do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are
unquestionably open-ended military acts of war against other powers?An abdication of Congress in its duty. By authorizing military force, it gives
Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can be blamed on the
President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to say yes or no,
not it depends.
Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007 01:48 PM
(5naUR)177 I believe that since he's a strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war
if it was declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his
duties as President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't
follow the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is
what makes him appealing.Where in the Constitution does it spell
out the need for a non-interventionist foreign policy? I don't have a
problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I have a problem with his
refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the luxury of
isolationism.
Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007 02:09 PM (R8+nJ)178 By authorizing
military force, it gives Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can
be blamed on the President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to
say yes or no, not it depends.Huh? Sorry, dude, but
authorizing the use of military force against someone is a declaration of
war. Unless you believe it is possible to blast an enemy's infantry, raze
their buildings and roll tanks down the streets of their capitol without making
war on them. The Constitution does not require a magic phrase to be
uttered when war is declared and no magic phrase would prevent the traitorous
left from undermining any war in which our interests are at stake. Had the
war resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit
Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a
single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.Your
argument is silly.
Posted by: VRWC Agent at May 16, 2007 08:34 PM (gjy1/)179 Had the war
resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit
Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a
single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.The February 6, 2006 testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's
Surveillance Authority, indicates there is a distinction:
GONZALES: There was
not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an
authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there
are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're
possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is
a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war
declaration. This is an authorization only to use military
force.
There is absolutely a difference between an AUMF and a
declaration of war (which grants much more power to the Executive
branch). One of the biggest being that Congress doesn't have as much room to
politicize the prosecution of the war. If you look at our declaration of
war against Germany in 1941, you can see that the language has no caveats.
Compare that to the AUMF in Iraq. I would argue that with a formal war declaration, criticisms such as warrantless wiretaps, and holding terror suspects in Guantanamo would have been neutralized to a certain extent because there is justification in doing so http://johnshadegg.house.gov/RSC/DeclarationofWar.PDF see page 3. Posted by: randolphus at May 17, 2007 03:03 AM
(5naUR)180 Where in the
Constitution does it spell out the need for a non-interventionist foreign
policy? I don't have a problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I
have a problem with his refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the
luxury of isolationism.I don't think that non-interventionist and
isolationism are synonymous. Isolationism to me means we don't trade or have
contact with anyone outside of the US. Non-interventionist means to me we don't
get into places like Darfur, or Somalia, or Kosovo because it's none of our
business. We get our troops out of Europe and Japan and Korea and let them pay
for their own defense. We get out of the UN and kick them out of Turtle Bay. If
you want to trade with us, then lets trade. The other (and more
important) part of a non-interventionist policy would be to make it clear
that if you fuck with us then we turn into Denzel in "Man on Fire" and tear
apart who ever it is and their families piece by piece. The failure of
Clinton's foreign policy was that terror groups thought they could strike us
(and they did) and our response would be weak (and it was). So much so that on
9/11 there was footage on the news from some country (in the Middle East) where
people were out in the streets cheering. If there were any other blatant sign of
our foreign policy shortcomings at that time I can't think of it. The only
reactions that I should have seen on the news that day were expressions of
sympathy and allegiance with us. Or, silence because of the collective worry
and "oh shit we shouldn't have done that" that was going through the minds
of our enemies from what our response was going to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment