That's not guts, that's backstabbing. It's leaving the military hung out to dry. As I stated, If Paul has been against the WoT since the beginning (and I'd have to agree after reviewing his voting record since 2002) then he should have worked for a bill to remove all funding and outspokenly supported that; not a stupid, ill-considered, objectionable non-binding resolution.
You can believe what you want about how many are moving to your side. But another thread in FR http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788496/posts tells a somewhat different story.
You and your ilk are no better than the Copperheads of the 1860’s. You’ll do anything to undermine the war effort. Thanks for your patriotism/S.
Oh horse manure. The smirking moron in the White House did that when he committed too few troops to the effort, declared victory too early, and then turned the whole fiasco into a "humanitarian" effort. You "war on terror" lemmings continuously squawk about patriotism and supporting the troops, but you're not willing to take the leadership to task for their stupidity in trying to use our military for purely political ends. A pox on the lot of you.
...not a stupid, ill-considered, objectionable non-binding resolution.
Nonsense. Paul didn't initiate the resolution. It came up for a vote and he voted on it. While I agree that non-binding resolutions are silly, as does Paul, the measure came up before the whole House. What was he supposed to do? His job is to be present and cast his vote on business before the House. Your jingoistic screeching lacks logic and holds those you don't like to a different standard than it does your beloved party droids.