[Fester Chugabrew]

Ron Paul clearly voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, and did so on the grounds that Iraq, as a country did not pose an imminent threat to our national security.

[mnehring]

Iraq, as a country did not pose an imminent threat to our national security.

OK, leave out the whole WMD thing, when was having over 90 attempts to shoot down US jets, attempted assassination of a former President, being a co-conspirator in the first WTC bombing not a threat to our national security? By all other standards, any one of those would be considered an act of war.

[wagglebee]

Ron Paul clearly voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, and did so on the grounds that Iraq, as a country did not pose an imminent threat to our national security.

Fine, so he voted against Iraq, the majority of both houses of Congress voted differently. Does MoRon Paul think that his vote is the only one that should count?

[SJackson]

Ron Paul clearly voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, and did so on the grounds that Iraq, as a country did not pose an imminent threat to our national security.

That's his opinion, and he gets to vote as he wishs.

Clearly then the Authorization was constitutional and his statements such as

“No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

and

“Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

are irrelevant

[Navy Patriot]

Ron Paul clearly voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq

But Congress Constitutionally authorized force over Paul's vote, so Paul doesn't have to go along?