Why did Ron Paul vote to authorize military action in Iraq and Afganistan???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I have two things to say.. one is that it would be better to not vote for that to vote against an act that has both very positive and necessary functions for the gov and negative free flowing totalitarianism ideals and global pressures.. that being said that would be my reason for NOT voting not that it was proven to be his. the second point is this: At that point the wording of the document was wrong, not the vote.. the wording was wrong in that it gave one man or org the power to point fingers.. it was in essence a vote on whether to retaliate or not ..

Here is Paul in October of 2002 speaking against the use of armed forces against Iraq.



He authorized the President to take action against those who were responsible for 9/11, and he may have given too much power to the President by voting for that. But, the Iraq war was authorized through Congress, and he was against it. Surprisingly, Obama also voted against that authorization.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Long story short, yes, I do, because responding to an attack against us - or preventing one if possible, is a valid function of government - although I would have preferred Congress approve the letter of Marque and Reprisal for more proper handling. That said, Paul is a representative, and acted in the interest of his constituents.

That being out of the way - your argument for Paul authorizing the Iraq War by such is - yes - a fail. Can you clarify for us when exactly the 9/11 attacks were given as a reason by the government for wanting to invade Iraq? Unless I'm forgetting something, the two are completely separate issues having nothing to do with one another, the Iraq War being predicated either upon the trumped up claims of WMDs, liberating the Iraqi people, Saddam generally being a bad guy, or some other such. I recall it having nothing to do with any valid authority from the AUMF dealing with 9/11.

Now, despite the fact that we all know you're an Obama guy, I won't currently ask for your opinion or defense of Obama's various authorizations of unwise intervention around the world, drone strikes, PATRIOT Act reauthorizations, signing NDAA into legislation, or various other questionable judgements - although I would like to see your thoughts on these at some point. I do find the disparity stiking, however.

reply to post by MalusLupus


I'm assuming for the first part of your post you are talking about him not voting for NDAA. I could understand that reasoning...I wonder if Ron Paul has ever come out and said why he didn't go back to vote for it.

As for the authorization for military force...I still think that it is hypocritical for him to campaign so hard against the wars when he authorized the use of any force. It does seem like the resolution gave too much power to Bush...and Ron Paul voted for it...it just seems contradictory to me based on his campaign rhetoric.

reply to post by nwdogg1982

He authorized the President to take action against those who were responsible for 9/11, and he may have given too much power to the President by voting for that. But, the Iraq war was authorized through Congress, and he was against it. Surprisingly, Obama also voted against that authorization.

That is my point...that resolution gave the President too much power...and Bush used that to help justify going into Iraq.

All I am saying is that it seems very contradictory to what Ron Paul is campaigning on and I haven't seen anyone discussing this on ATS.

Some may want to call it a "hit piece" because it isn't praising Ron Paul...but I think it is important information for all to see.

I hope you didn't forget what the environment was like in this country after 9/11. No, we didn't just have to go after the enemies, it had to be an all out war.

Luckily Ron Paul saw through it and thought about it when he introduced this:


www.govtrack.us...

H.R. 3076: September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001
107th Congress: 2001-2002
To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

10/10/2001--Introduced.
September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, including any similar planned acts against the United States in the future. Authorizes the President to place a bounty, from amounts appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


But Bush didn't use his Executive powers to go to war with Iraq. That war was authorized separately from the 9/11 authorization, through a joint resolution in Congress. HJ 114 is the House side of that bill, and Paul clearly stood against that authorization.

Though, I agree he may have given the President too much power in the 9/11 authorization, that had nothing to do with the Iraq war.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


What are you talking about?


Ron Paul isn't hiding his Afghanistan authorization in the closet. He talks about it OPENLY but has WARNED and CONDEMNED about the amount of time, energy, and lives that were further thrown into Afghanistan when there is no wars to fight.

But he does condemn Iraq, which he didn't vote for and he does condemn Iran which he doesn't support as well.

So what is your point?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Cuervo

 

But in the past...Ron Paul has claimed to be against things based on very small issues.

So why would he vote to grant such open ended power to the President??? Shouldn't this be something that he stands on his "principles" and demand that the use of force be defined strictly or to put in some sort of safe guards so what Bush did couldn't happen???

I don't think it's anything he's proud of and he certainly regrets it. Just like many respectable people voted for the Patriot Act yet the decent ones regret it. It's those guys who still defend those horrible in-the-moment decisions that are dangerous.

reply to post by Praetorius

Long story short, yes, I do, because responding to an attack against us - or preventing one if possible, is a valid function of government - although I would have preferred Congress approve the letter of Marque and Reprisal for more proper handling. That said, Paul is a representative, and acted in the interest of his constituents.

So you don't think that resolution granted Bush way too much power???

That being out of the way - your argument for Paul authorizing the Iraq War by such is - yes - a fail. Can you clarify for us when exactly the 9/11 attacks were given as a reason by the government for wanting to invade Iraq? Unless I'm forgetting something, the two are completely separate issues having nothing to do with one another, the Iraq War being predicated either upon the trumped up claims of WMDs, liberating the Iraqi people, Saddam generally being a bad guy, or some other such. I recall it having nothing to do with any valid authority from the AUMF dealing with 9/11.

Yes, Bush claimed a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, it is commonly accepted that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Let's go back to our resolution that Ron Paul voted for.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Whoever "harbored such organizations or persons"...this is what Bush used to invade Iraq...he also used the false claim of WMDs to help create the fear factor to push people into supporting it. But yes...he clearly did use 9/11 and Al Qaeda as part of his reasoning to invade Iraq.

I really didn't think this was up for discussion...do you honestly not remember Bush linking Saddam to Al Qaeda???


As for your other questions, feel free to create a thread...but for now that is a bit off topic.

reply to post by eLPresidente

I hope you didn't forget what the environment was like in this country after 9/11.

Are you using that as your justification for being ok with Ron Paul granting such open ended authority to Bush???

I would think a man that is unshakeable in his prinicples wouldn't allow emotions due to the environment to make him through those principles and vote against what he claims he actually supports.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Quoting one line out of my entire post to further your agenda. I expected nothing less from you.



This would be the second time in this thread you ignored my mention of Ron Paul's letters of marque and reprisal.


Isn't it ironic how your aggression towards Ron Paul rose equally to his popularity and success in the GOP primaries?

reply to post by Cuervo

I don't think it's anything he's proud of and he certainly regrets it. Just like many respectable people voted for the Patriot Act yet the decent ones regret it. It's those guys who still defend those horrible in-the-moment decisions that are dangerous.

I have honestly not heard Ron Paul talk about this issue. But I don't go out of my way to look for Ron Paul videos or interviews. So I have never heard him state that he isn't "proud" of this vote...but that is the kind of information I am looking for in this thread.

The most I have heard is from Ron Paul's own mouth at debates, speeches, and invterviews he's done in the past year. And from his talk on the campaign trail...I was very surprised to see this information about him. I was expecting him to have NEVER voted for the use of military force...so it was just something I wanted to find out more about.

I didn't know stating his voting record and asking why he voted for this when he campaigns against military be considered an attack by most of his supporters. So thank you for being civil and just discussing the issue instead of being emotional and personally attacking me.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
No. I do not believe AUMF granted Bush too much power. I believe Bush perverted the valid power that AUMF granted to lead this country into farcical ventures.

While the Bush administration may have danced very much around the edges to arouse public opinion along the lines to use 9/11 as an excuse for attacking Iraq, the excuse long-since fell away in light of intelligence at the time.

Regardless, Paul authorizing the legislation is not surprising. Bush's abuse of the legislation, however, was, as was his failure to prevent anything remotely resembling valid suspicion that Iraq had anything to do with the attack - again, ALL of the intelligence on record as presented to Bush by our intelligence agencies at the time proves this, and this is one of the prime reasons 9/11 ultimately had *zilch* to do with our final excuses and public motivation to invade Iraq.

To attribute the Iraq invasion in any way, shape, or form to Paul is intellectually dishonest and a complete contradiction of facts, as well as overstating Bush's reliance on what Paul authorized to do so.

Very weak. To readdress your thread title quite clearly, Paul authorized nothing on Iraq, and authorized Afghanistan in so far as it's where intelligence sources reported the alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 attack were currently headquartered. No, Paul should *not* have resisted it on principle as he is a representative of US citizens.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Quoting one line out of my entire post to further your agenda. I expected nothing less from you.



This would be the second time in this thread you ignored my mention of Ron Paul's letters of marque and reprisal.


Isn't it ironic how your aggression towards Ron Paul rose equally to his popularity and success in the GOP primaries?

I don't really care about what Ron Paul attempted to do and failed.

I wanted to know why he voted the way he did on this resolution when he is campaigning against ALL military action overseas.

He gave incredible power to Bush...so how can he complain about Bush using it???

reply to post by Praetorius


Like I said...I heard this information today and I was actually very surprised to hear that Ron Paul voted for the authorization of any type of military action.

And yes, I still think Bush used this authorization as part of his argument to invade Iraq. Without the link to Al Qaeda...his only argument would be "WMDs"...and I don't think he would of convinced people or congress to authorize it. But since he said he was going after Al Qaeda and a link to Al Qaeda with Saddam...and he has this authorization to go after those linked with those responsible...I do still think that Ron Paul's vote helped Bush go to war in Iraq.

Ron Paul authorized the use of force to go after "AL QAEDA" with H.J. Res #64, which was a Congressional vote, as he believes in.

The IRAQ Authorization Act was H.J. Res #114, with 136 COSPONSORS,

www.congress.org...

www.govtrack.us...

thomas.loc.gov...:H.J.RES.114:

Ron Paul voted "NAY".

Ron also voted "NAY" on the "Regarding inspection and monitoring to prevent the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" Bill. H. J. Res. 75: 107th Congress.

projects.washingtonpost.com...

He was 1 of 12.

He also voted "NAY" on the NDAA version of the 107th Congress.

www.govtrack.us...

He even voted AGAINST the funding for 'security and reconstruction" in Iraq and Afghan in the 108th Congress.

www.govtrack.us...

I could go on and on.

I feel you KNEW the answers to this before creating this thread, since you seem to know 'so much ' else about Ron Paul. Through your online obsession with him it's safe to assume you knew the answers to your own OP (with the multiple ?????? question marks included for emphasis and sensationalism).

You didn't start this thread to ask an honest question. You just started this thread to get a attention, and you did, congrats.

Your spin on the fact that he voted to go after "Al Qaeda" in turn means he is some 'warmonger' like others, is disingenuous.

On the specifics of IRAQ, you have been proven to be a liar or misinformed at the least.

In fact all the funding/appropriations bills AFTER Iraq and such were ALL voted NAY on by him once he realized the George Bush was bending the rules of engagement.

You know this though. I'm not telling you anything new. I have a feeling you know A LOT about Ron Paul, maybe even more than many of his supporters. Obsessions do that.

Good day,.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Like I said...I heard this information today and I was actually very surprised to hear that Ron Paul voted for the authorization of any type of military action.

Well, I'm sorry. You're not very familiar with Ron Paul, then.

And yes, I still think Bush used this authorization as part of his argument to invade Iraq. Without the link to Al Qaeda...his only argument would be "WMDs"...and I don't think he would of convinced people or congress to authorize it. But since he said he was going after Al Qaeda and a link to Al Qaeda with Saddam...and he has this authorization to go after those linked with those responsible...I do still think that Ron Paul's vote helped Bush go to war in Iraq.

There were very indirect allusions presented, which were pretty swiftly contradicted by our intelligence sources - this being the primary reason Bush & co. moved far away from such claims and moved on to the others to keep the drums beating...although fear and the prior vague allusions had already ingrained the idea in the american populace itself by that point.

Regardless, even Bush recognized how weak the claim was, so no longer tried to even make it in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. You cannot on ANY solid ground apply AUMF to the invasion of Iraq in light of the progression of claims against Iraq moving steadily further and further away from anything having to do with 9/11.

Yes, Paul will himself and by way of providing authorization defend this country or seek out those responsible for harming it. But he will also quite clearly and vocally point out when bounds have been overstepped, surpassing any valid claims or authorization for unlawful or stupid actions being carried out, as he did when mission drift started to become obvious and tenuous claims of no merit were made.