Succinct but right on the mark. I think it’s a spit in the face of the fine men and women of the world’s greatest military to spill their blood while leaving the back door to Mexico wide open. I think it’s treasonous and immoral beyond words.
It was cowardly and contepmtuous for a spineless Congress not to have the backbone to declare war.
All that follows from that makes all the “fight terrorism” talk here sound to me like the cacaphony of a whole lot of brainwashed people with only a superficial Sean- Hannity-soundbite idea of what it means to be a Republican.
If Ron Paul would really be glad to fight against our enemies as long as there was a formal declaration of war, why did he vote for the September 14, 2001 "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," which...
...was not a declaration of war (at least not in the sense of "declaration of war" Ron Paul supporters use on this board).
...was not confined to any particular nation even though we were already sure that Afghanistan was harboring the home organization of the hijackers.
...gave the President authority to choose when to act, something Paul says was unconstitutional when we did it against Iraq.
...by Paul's own admittance, targeted "a group which is not a country."
And why did Paul call the September 14 resolution "[a] clear declaration of war" but claim that the Iraq authorization, which is much more specific, is not a declaration of war?
Seems like he's trying to have it both ways...one has to ask, "why?"
Source is here.