[mnehring]

I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.

Here is the crux of where Paul misses it (OK, one of the ways he misses it...) He gives the islamic radicals the moral authority to say who can or cannot be on their 'holy land'. Why should they be the ones with that authority? The last time I checked, were were guests of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and pretty much every country there we are in with the exception of Iraq (without going into that argument again.)

So, why do the islamic extremists have the moral authority in his mind over those who welcome us to help with security (and in turn, securing a vital defense and economic resource for our country- oil.)

[wideawake]

The most ridiculous part is that Paul says we were "occupying" Saudi Arabia.

We weren't.

He is either deliberately lying or he is insane.

There is no third option.

[bcsco]

Here is the crux of where Paul misses it...

He seems to miss somewhat more than Muslim fanaticism's lack of authority. What of our own lack of authority (by his standards...

How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?

I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.

He voted for the authority but there was no declaration of war. Of course he differentiates between Afghanistan and Iraq by saying we were going after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but again, Al-Qaeda is not a sovereign state, so he voted to invade a sovereign state without a declaration of war. So much for following the letter of the Constitution.