Posted on 09/06/2007 2:33:46 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)
REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I’m saying — (laughter) — I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
ROFL
Apparently, Congress agreed with the POTUS.
The folks on FR supporting L Ron Paul are either stealth DU trolls or mindless drank the kool aid fools.
How the Paulestians can call themselves republicans and be Marxist anti war doesn’t wash
I think most of Congress thought the war would go well and they didn't want to find themselves on the wrong end of the vote come the next election. That's why so many have since run away with from their vote...blaming the President for the way he conducted the war...or trying to claim he ginned up the intelligence. I have respect for those who took a principled position...either for or against...I have nothing but contempt for those who play politics with decisions as serious as whether to send American troops into battle
I’ve been puzzling over this one all day. Citing international law is the opposite of every thing Ron Paul ever preached. Ron Paul has changed.
This was his “for the war before he was against it” moment.
This isn’t meant to pick on the elderly, I am very nearly one myself. But 72 is too old to run for the presidency. I’m sorry, it’s just TOO old. I think that’s one of Paul’s problems and some other candidates as well. We do not need a president who is sick or senile or dies in office. If that job doesn’t require strength and stamina, I don’t know what would.
That’s absurd. Paul is the only true conservative running. All these other idiots are just big government liberals — the only difference is their spending revolves around their religious belief.
Ross Perot had a chance. He got about one out of every five votes in the end. Perot's mistake was dropping out of the election (at a time when he was leading in the polls over both Bush and Clinton) and then re-entering a couple of weeks later. The American people where ready at that time to dump the two party system, but his temporary departure cost him big.
I hardly consider Ron Paul to be a champion of our enemies and their aims; ememies who cannot begin to fathom a country where people of every faith can live without fear of being persecuted for their faith.
The problem I see is that it’s false, and probably a lie.
I think he’s perpetrating a fraud on all his silly followers.
Bush didn't make the argument either and American Presidents do not swear oaths to international law. Ron Paul was an embarassment to any conservative last night. International Law justifies our return to Iraq since Hussein broke the terms of surrender. "Neocons" did not authorize the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, Congress did. When Congress authorizes war that is a de facto declaration. Ron Paul should go back to the Libertarian Party where he belongs.
stevemcqueen Since Sep 6, 2007
You are wanted back at DU for further instructions
LOL! Saved.
“it’s illegal under international law”
surely paul mispoke:
(Bill to get US our of UN, introduced by Ron Paul)
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis/106/hr1146.htm
Yea, the fraud of the UN, see post 39
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.