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

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Yet another good find Outkast, It appears that Ron Paul is not such the solid consistent voter as we're all lead to believe. I'll look into this more myself, but such legislation legitimized the actions of the Bush administration during those years.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


In all fairness though Outkast, you should see the votes for this bill. 420 ayes, 1 nay in the house. 98 ayes in the senate. This bill with overwhelmingly supported by those in congress. I think this was a reactionary bill. While this is another shot towards Ron Paul's supposed solid record, I can sympathize with his position and the circumstances then. He sould take responsibility for his vote back then none the less.

Ron Paul screws up and he is wrong about things often. This comes as no suprise to anyone. Well anyone outside of the Ron Paul Cult. To most of us he is just another politician.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

He sould take responsibility for his vote back then none the less.

Uhm...Guardian - how has he not, exactly? He's never denied it and brings it up quite frequently. When the mission went awry and Bush started straying from both the letter AND spirit of the legislation, Paul denounced it, and actively warned against and refused to support the Iraq intervention or any further adventurism that drifted from the scope and intent of addressing the 9/11 attacks.

Would you care to clarify?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Didn't go through all the replies.
This vote was to get Bin Laden, not Iraq or Afghanistan war authorization. End of story. Stop smearing the great Ron Paul.

NO ONE BUT PAUL!!!!

Originally posted by MrSpadRon Paul screws up and he is wrong about things often. This comes as no suprise to anyone. Well anyone outside of the Ron Paul Cult. To most of us he is just another politician.

Really, Spad? Please enlighten us about what all he's often been wrong on, seeing as how he predicted the attacks against us before they happened, predicted the housing collapse and economic collapse before it happened, and in 2002 more or less accurately predicted the entire last decade, on record.

I look forward to you sharing your insights with us, as I can provide video of all this. Please cite your examples of his frequently being wrong and screwing up.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by PaxVeritas

I could go on and on.

You could, but you are just going on and on on things he voted against.

I'm interested why he voted for authorization for military use and then campaigns against it.

It's as simple as that.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I'm interested why he voted for authorization for military use and then campaigns against it.

It's as simple as that.

Then I suggest you read through the thread and actually acknowledge what's been provided to you already. We were attacked, Paul introduced legislation to appropriately respond to the attackers without embroiling us in a full on war or bogging us down unduly in other nations. The rest of our government didn't get behind this legislation which would have saved us all a lot of grief and actually addressed the issue accordingly.

Then Paul authorized, along with almost the entire government and will of the entire nation, use of force for valid purposes. Then the government took the military off course, so Paul ended his support and validly took up opposition to the wrongly diversion. He accurately called out the government's lies and excuses ahead of time, and the rest of us - for the most part - didn't listen.

There's your answer. It's the only answer, it's the truth, and you won't get anything else. It's up to you to acknowledge it, but I'd assume you'll keep trying to deflect and wriggle around it to make it into something it isn't.

reply to post by Praetorius

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.

There were no bounds in the resolution he voted for...that is my point.

How can he complain about Bush overstepping bounds when he granted him open ended authorization???

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

In all fairness though Outkast, you should see the votes for this bill. 420 ayes, 1 nay in the house. 98 ayes in the senate. This bill with overwhelmingly supported by those in congress. I think this was a reactionary bill. While this is another shot towards Ron Paul's supposed solid record, I can sympathize with his position and the circumstances then. He sould take responsibility for his vote back then none the less.

I understand the reactionary situation of this bill.

But to my knowledge, he is the only one currently campaigning against the use of all military force overseas.

To me it just shows a contradiction of his campaign rhetoric and his voting record.

Originally posted by robwerden
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Didn't go through all the replies.
This vote was to get Bin Laden, not Iraq or Afghanistan war authorization. End of story. Stop smearing the great Ron Paul.

NO ONE BUT PAUL!!!!

Bush went to Afganistan to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda...so yes...Ron Paul voted for the authorization of that.

He also used the excuse of Al Qaeda being in Iraq and this authorization to get further authorization for Iraq. I'm fully aware Ron Paul didn't vote for that...but he voted for the previous authorization that Bush used as justification to get the Iraq authorization.

He gave Bush unbounded power to go after whoever he wants as long as Bush deemed they were connected to 9/11.

I am just pointing out Ron Paul's voting record...it it smears Ron Paul...then he is doing it himself.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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 didn't realize that he posted that video. That is pretty much the closest thing I could find to what I was thinking of and may have actually been the same video. In any case, no, he didn't directly say that his vote was a mistake but he was sure as heck railing against the ramifications not even one year later.

The video is pretty cool on a couple of levels: one, it shows how he was solidly against starting the war and two, it's almost like he totally predicted the future.

There are several things to not like about the things he proposes on an economic and government level but on foreign policy and social politics, I'd say he's pretty solid. He's not my ideal candidate but he's the only guy offering what I require in a president right now.

Oh, and you aren't out of line asking the question. Ron Paul fanbois will be Ron Paul fanbois, god love them.

reply to post by Praetorius

Then Paul authorized, along with almost the entire government and will of the entire nation, use of force for valid purposes. Then the government took the military off course, so Paul ended his support and validly took up opposition to the wrongly diversion. He accurately called out the government's lies and excuses ahead of time, and the rest of us - for the most part - didn't listen.

How do you go off course when you are granted unbounded authority???

It's a very short resolution, and it is very clear...it grants Bush the authority to use any and all military force to go after anyone he "deems" is connected to the attacks.

If Ron Paul didn't want them to "go off course"...then he shouldn't of voted for it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


use ANY use of the armed forces against those responsible for 9/11.

Aren't these the key words here ? THOSE RESPONSIBLE

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
This:

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.

Is NOT open-ended power. It is not an excuse to outright lie and fabricate one's way around all intelligence from the combined input of US and foreign agencies to do whatever one wants on the global scene. Bush, previously, had been a do-nothing president elected on a platform of non-interventionist foreign policy, allegedly acting in scope of addressing the most significant terrorist attack in US history.

Despite being outsized and unnecessary, it's entirely valid legislation that would, in the case of anyone dealing with facts, valid intent, and acting according to actual intelligence as suggested they would by their prior persona, allow a proper redressing of the situation.

You notice the wording up there? "necessary and appropriate force against those...he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided" After we started tinkering around with side quests in Afghanistan and trumping up crap against Iraq in opposition to the facts as provided by all actual intel, Bush's authorization was gone, nil, finis.

It's just a shame Paul was one of oh so few to call the government out on this.

EDIT:
And if you're really concerned about unbounded authority, which this was NOT, then perhaps you should go ahead and open up a thread about the PATRIOT Act Obama keeps authorizing, his approval of indefinite detention, the effective repeal of Habeas Corpus, and all his other excessive abuses of power and recognition & approval of governmental overreach. You don't care about the fact that Bush was given power, since you have no problem with Obama doing the exact same things. You're just making weak attempts to lash out at Paul in fairly hypocritical fashion.

reply to post by cuervo


Here ya go:

reply to post by cuervo


I actually really like Ron Paul's foreign policy...which is why I was surprised to hear that he voted for this authorization. It does make me kind of wonder why he voted for it...if it was just to go along with the entire congress and most of the nation...fine...I can accept that. But I can't accept him campaigning against it without making people aware that he made a mistake in authorizing it. He campaigns alot by saying "them" and "they"...but with this vote he was at one point part of that "them".


I understand you supporting him based on his foreign policies. I can't though...his domestic policies are too extreme and too far to the right for me to support him. Even though I know that as President he has a better chance accomplishing his foreign policy rather than his domestic policy...it is a risk that I think is too big to take for my personal perspective.

Originally posted by Elisha03011972
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

use ANY use of the armed forces against those responsible for 9/11.

Aren't these the key words here ? THOSE RESPONSIBLE

The key words are actually "as DEEMED responsible (or harbored those responsible) by the president". That isn't a direct quote...but that is the context of the resolution. It only needs to be deemed by the president...that's it.