Replies

when it suits you to justify Paul’s vote for action in Afghanistan. But when it comes to Iraq, suddenly it is not mere semantics and it was the principled decision not to support it? Is that about the size of it?

The administration sat around and diddled on Iraq trying to build up a "consensus" from the "international community." Paul knew exactly where it was going & that's why he voted against it. That's far different than Afghanistan when the objectives were clear and we needed to strike back.

So you haven't answered why Bush didn't simply declare war against Islamic terrorism from the get-go, instead of holding the Prince of Saud's hand and claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, among other things.

"The administration sat around and diddled on Iraq trying to build up a "consensus" from the "international community." Paul knew exactly where it was going & that's why he voted against it. That's far different than Afghanistan when the objectives were clear and we needed to strike back." OH, OK so according to you and Ron Paul we only have to follow your interpretation of a "Consitutionally declared war" when the objectives are not clear? If the objectives are clear, we can ignore the Constitution? ROFLOL!

"So you haven't answered why Bush didn't simply declare war against Islamic terrorism from the get-go...." 1. You can't declare "war" on a general problem. 2. I think the declaration of war is a simple matter of semantics anyway. You, apparently, only think it is a matter of semantics when you support the war!