To: Grunthor
Oh I would. And I would go after a President Paul if it turned out that he could have stopped it beforehand but might have had to do something that wasn’t specifically covered by the Constitution, so he just had to wait and react. Actually I believe Paul's position is that preemption is both un-American and immoral. War's are to be waged for self-defence, in my mind that can happen only after the fact.
150 posted on
07/19/2007 3:04:59 PM PDT by
SJackson
(isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
To: SJackson
“War’s are to be waged for self-defence, in my mind that can happen only after the fact.”
And when we are talking nuclear terrorism, after the fact is too damned late.
151 posted on
07/19/2007 3:11:42 PM PDT by
Grunthor
(Wouldn’t it be music to our ears to hear the Iranian mullahs shouting “Incoming!”?)
To: SJackson; Grunthor
Actually I believe Paul's position is that preemption is both un-American and immoral. War's are to be waged for self-defence, in my mind that can happen only after the fact.
No, he does not limit the president's authority and duty to protect us unilaterally and without consulting Congress. The Constitution is quite clear on this point. RP stated the other day that his standard was a credible and imminent threat.
He knows his history, especially the Cold War era which he lived through.
Like any proper textualist, he is faithful to the Constitution but knows it is no suicide pact.
154 posted on
07/19/2007 3:29:55 PM PDT by
George W. Bush
(Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson