... and we all should have figured what Ron Paul's answer to Pearl Harbor would have been:
... and we all should have figured what Ron Paul's answer to Pearl Harbor would have been:
Man, y’all are pretty dense. The question was about one of these “imminent” Jack Baur moments that get y’all so terrified that your Supreme Leader has to start wiping people off of the map without the consent of congress. RP’s response to Guliani about who attacked NY on 9/11 was accurate, but did not directly target the knee-jerk impertinent “9/11/9/119/11” response from Guliani.
Here’s how RP should have responded to Guliani:
Benito Ghouliani: I disagree with RP that the U.S. has not been attacked in such a way as requiring a Presidential act of war without the consent of congress in 220 years. Where was he on 9/11?
RP: That wasn’t a country that was 19 thugs.
Ghouliani: But they were from Afghanistan and Pakistan
Should have been RP’s response: No they weren’t. They were born in Saudi Arabia and lived for years in places like Venice, Fl. where they worked with Germans, Austrians, and Americans such as Wolfgang Bohringer, Rudi Dekkers, Arnie Kruitof, and Wally Hilliard and where they worked within the milieu of the international cocaine and herion trade and were monitored by U.S. intelligence operations such as the military’s Able Danger project.
So why are you bringing up 9/11 anyway? Are you suggesting that this is an example of where you may have needed to nuke Venice, Florida or Saudi Arabia without the consent of Congress?
Is the best example you can come up with of an imminent Jack Bauer moment where the President must must nuke civilians or torture kittens without a declaration of war from congress?