Replies

“Since no WMD were ever found nor any evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11, Ron Paul voted against invasion.”

Actually, Ron Paul jumped on the WMD card after the invasion, around the same time as the left. Before the war, Ron Paul was warning everyone that all of the Arab and Gulf states would enact an oil embargo against the United States if the United States attacked Iraq. When is this oil embargo supposed to happen?

“He voted to authorize the president to pursue Bin Laden into Afghanistan (more a collection of medieval fiefdoms under warlords than an actual country) “

But there was no declaration of war. Ron Paul authorized military action against the internationally recognized soverign nation of Afghanistan without a declaration of war. And then he claims that this was unconstitutional in regards to Iraq.

“Saddam executed Islamic radicals out of hand as a danger to his regime just as other Arab dictators do.”

Radicals? You mean like Abu Abbas, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered a wheelchair bound Amreican? Oh, wait, Saddam provided safe haven for international terrorists like Abbas.

“That is not the case with the Afghans whose excesses and barbarism repelled even other Muslims.”

How about Al Qaeda in Iraq, whose excess barbarism is repelling even other Muslims? Oh wait, we can’t fight them there can we, because there was no declaration of war (even though we are fighting the same enemy in Afghanistan without a declaration of war). And you never elaborated on you insinuations that the objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom have changed. I remember debunking this arguement in 2004 during the elections, and I haven’t seen it sense, except from you. I want to debunk it again, just for old times sake (it’s funny seeing regurgitated DNC talking points from 2004 appear on the net.) So tell me, in detail, what objectives have changed.

But there was no declaration of war. Ron Paul authorized military action against the internationally recognized soverign nation of Afghanistan without a declaration of war. And then he claims that this was unconstitutional in regards to Iraq.

Ron Paul separates it this way as best I understand (he spoke directly about it the other day):

The president has the right and duty to protect the country with unlimited unilateral action including preemptive strikes in the event of a credible imminent threat without consulting Congress. (Or the United Nations.)
When going to war against a recognized sovereign power with an organized military, the Constitution prescribes that Congress alone must declare a war.
When taking action against terrorists, irregular forces under no national flag, pirates, etc., the president should seek the support of Congress before acting if there is no imminent threat that requires immediate action to protect our people or nation or trade.

At any rate, it's a pretty reasonable standard and one that works pretty well when reading the Founders and our early history and some of the history of the dispute of war powers between the legislative branch and the executive. It is not an unreasonable position. Well, unless only a dictator makes you feel safe but I think we all know how the Founders felt about those dangers.

Contrary to the wild assertions made against Dr. Paul, it is a good standard. If you believe that the Constitution is just some archaic curiosity or that "It's just a damned piece of paper", then you really need to go with a dictator. For that, you can choose from leaders like the Xlintons. Or that leftwing autocratic mayor. These are the sorts of persons easily corrupted by power and who rapidly will become a law unto themselves, in short, exactly the sort of classic tyrant which was our Founders' greatest single fear.

Dr. Paul's reliance on the Constitution may seem quaint. But you either rely upon it as our safeguard or you have opened the door to relativism, to penumbras and emanations and other mischief. And then voting for Bush just for the judges was just a joke because the text and history and intent of the Framers is an irrelevant history.

I trust the Constitution. And I keep in mind that someday, perhaps in 2009, a radical and/or dangerous Democrat may hold the presidency and we will need the Constitution more than ever. Destroying it as the basis of our rule of law is not in the interest of conservatives. Ever.

Radicals? You mean like Abu Abbas, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered a wheelchair bound Amreican? Oh, wait, Saddam provided safe haven for international terrorists like Abbas.

I think you know I was referring to al-Qaeda within Iraq prior to our invasion (which created a power vacuum into which they poured to kill our soldiers). Yes, Saddam did harbor a major Pali terrorist and, like many Arab businessmen and rulers and Saudi princes, he rewarded the families of terror bombers with subsidies. But the Pali terrorist we caught in Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda or 9/11.

How about Al Qaeda in Iraq, whose excess barbarism is repelling even other Muslims? Oh wait, we can’t fight them there can we, because there was no declaration of war (even though we are fighting the same enemy in Afghanistan without a declaration of war).

I've read of no organization called "Al Qaeda in Iraq". There is another factional ROP group that recently changed its name to "al-Qaeda In Mesopotamia" (an old name for the Iraq region prior to and during the British colonial administration). They are not affiliated with Bin Laden's operation. "al-Qaeda" has become a generic brand name for terrorism and jihad, adopted by a number of self-radicalized groups around the world. They may be thugs or homegrown terrorists but they are not the real al-Qaeda network which committed 9/11 and still exists, probably in the tribal areas of Pakistan where many of us believe Bin Laden still is, well, if he's still alive.

Also, don’t forget Abu Nidal who was the guy that Ollie North did not want his wife and kids to have to confront. Mr. Nidal was reported to have committed “suicide” by firing four or five bullets into the back of his own head just before the American bombers appeared over Baghdad where he had been living.