[PhiKapMom]

For whatever reason Paul voted against this (and it costs almost nothing to do this BTW), he looks like a jerk when it comes to voting "NO" on honoring our 50-year alliance with Australia. The following was reported today (Wed over there):

"Australia said on Wednesday it would deploy 1,550 military personnel, including elite Special Air Service troops, four fighter aircraft, three frigates and two refuelling aircraft to join U.S.-led attacks on Afghanistan. Australian Prime Minister John Howard said he expected the military assets would be fully deployed by the middle of November."

For the folks on here supporting Paul:

Some of you can call KQQL a moron or disruptor if you wish, but I would tend to agree with him. It is none of our business if Australia doesn't have the 2nd amendment or support gun rights anymore than it is for them to tell us that we should ban guns. The resolution costs a miniscule amount compared to the good will it generates and this very vote is one of the prime reasons that Paul would never be elected Senator from Texas! He votes his own way and basically tells his constituents to go pound it! If he were my Congressman, I would be furious!

[Twodees]

Since the good will already exists and anyone who cares already recognizes the historical significance of the 50th anniversary of the treaty with Australia, what good is served by passing a resolution? Congress does this kind of thing every day that they are in session, spending tens of millions of dollars per year on just this kind of meaningless gesturing.

Aren't you even a fiscal conservative, or are you only a social conservative?

[4CJ]

I agree. He also voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. On some votes he is a winner, but on others he misses by a country mile. And I cannot see how this is unconstitutional, after all, Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution reads "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties ..."