Ron Paul quote from the debate last night. (vanity)

NYT Transcript ^ | 9/6/07 | Vanity

[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.)

[Clint N. Suhks]

Anyone else see a problem here...like an illogical pattern of thinking?

[Responsibility2nd]

Watching Ron Paul last night reminded me of Ross Perot back in ‘92.

Crazy hysterical Texans who don’t have a prayer.

[clamper1797]

What I see is a moonbat liberal disguised as a conservative

[papasmurf]

Are you kidding me?

I stated moths ago that he has serious personality defectS.

In fact, so do mitt and rudy. But Dr. Paul’s is out of control. Did you see his neck veins bursting out last night. LOL

[Right_Rev]

I was for the Constitution before I was against the constitution!

[oblomov]

Yes, this is a contradiction.

[Tears of a Clown]

Perot was much more charasmatic and down-to-earth than Paul.

That’s not really saying much of course...

[Clint N. Suhks]

ROFLMAO!

[jonrick46]

Running Ron Paul for president is like running Alfred E. Neuman.

[Ramius]

I’m really looking forward to the “Kucinich / Paul” ticket.

Should be a hoot.

[Fudd Fan]

“Aggressive war”

Wonder if RuPaul ever heard of any other kind. Certifiable moonbat wingnut head-case.

[sofaman]

He is "for the constitution" but is against this part of the constitution:

"The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001."

So he is for HIS VERSION of the Constitution... in other words, a nutjob.

[Fudd Fan]

lol!

I had thought that RuPaul was the “republican” version of Kook-cinich. But now I think he’s more like the “republican” version of How-wierd Dean.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I’m really looking forward to the “Kucinich / Paul” ticket.

It could happen. He sure isn't going to win the republican primary.

[sofaman]

as opposed to a defensive war....(????) I wonder how he classifies WW2...

Aggressive or Defensive...Yes or No!

[Man50D]

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.

Here you go Congressman.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Excerpt

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

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.

[hocndoc]

I saw the wagging finger, the loss of control. Guess who that reminded me of?

And I heard him ignore the fact that Congress did authorize force against a tyrant who ignored every restraint “international law” had put on him.

We made a contract with the UN, they put restrictions on Saddam and he continued to kill, to fly where he wanted, and to trade oil for weapons while under sanctions. Libertarians used to understand that fraud is aggression.

[papasmurf]

I was thinking he somehow morphed into Howard Sheehan. :)

[rightwingintelligentsia]

For someone who believes in isolationism, he sure is a fan of “international law.”

[uxbridge]

Aggressive war

Wonder if RuPaul ever heard of any other kind. Certifiable moonbat wingnut head-case.

The opposite would be defensive war...which is the only type of war permissible under international law. You can agree or disagree with Paul as to whether the invasion of Iraq was an action of self-defense by the US...obviously Paul does not believe it was...and, to me, the position that the US was under some sort of imminent threat from Saddam that justifies a US invasion is hard to make