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

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of how wrong I think it is.

To me, it shows that Paul understands the system and what it will choose to do, and that as a representative he is effectively responsible for ensuring that he *represents* and works for his constituents appropriately.

And, even if you want to consider it inconsistency - given his ridiculous consistency otherwise far exceeding that of pretty much anyone else in the political realm that I'm aware of - he is the least of offenders. If you want to talk about inconsistency as being problematic, I would suggest looking to Obama's campaign promises, debt promises, and everything else he's failed to be consistent about.

Paul comes out on top in the consistency game even if you want to use niggling and picky arguments that don't carry much weight to claim otherwise. Coupled with his prescience and obvious knowledge and awareness of matters, I can stomach it much more than I can the faults of all other options even if I agreed it were inconsistent - which I don't.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by wardk28

 

Why do so many RP supporters ignore this inconsistency in his record?

The great, awesome, god-like Ron Paul is a warmonger? Tell me something new. Anyone who voted to authorize military action in Iraq and/or Afghanistan is a TRAITOR, regardless of party affiliation!

What inconsistency? Did Paul ever claim he would not defend this country or respond to its attackers? I must have missed that.

As far as everyone who authorized action in Afghanistan being a traitor (Paul had nothing to do with Iraq, just as AUMF 2001 also did not - hence Iraq action needing UN approval and later AUMF legislation which Paul opposed), then apparently pretty much *everyone* in our government at the time, as well the vast majority of the american people, are traitors.

reply to post by Praetorius


There really aren't any other candidates who make "consistency" one of their main campaign points.

So when Ron Paul is inconsistent...it is a little more damaging than when others are.

It would be like it being revealed that Santorum is a devil worshiper, or that Romney failed his business classes in college.

When you make something one of your main campaign points...and then it is shown that you aren't really holding up to that...it looks really really bad.


You would think his supporters would be the most angry about it...but they just seem to excuse it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Of course we excuse it - because we understand it well enough to know that it's not inconsistent.

On the war issue, Paul could not authorize any response to threats or actual aggression against us - that would make him inconsistent. You can't fault him for not having the foresight to know the president would completely abuse the authority he was given by lying quite obviously and disregarding all actual intelligence to carry out personal vendettas.

On the spending issue, the money's going to get spent regardless. Paul will vote against the spending if he doesn't feel it's authorized, but if it's going to get spent anyway, best to actually represent his constituents and serve their best interests instead of letting the funds disappear down the Executive memory hole. To not do so, with his demand for accounting of federal spending and people getting to keep and use their own money - that would make him inconsistent.

Inconsistency, no. Understanding the processes involved and doing one's job to the best of his ability, yes.

*****ATTENTION*****

As a reminder, the topic of this thread is: Why did Ron Paul vote to authorize military action in Iraq and Afganistan??? NOT other members.

Any posts that are about other members, off topic or violate any Terms and Conditions of Use will be actioned by staff.

Discuss and debate the TOPIC and the topic only!

Thank you.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

First of all, Ron Paul voted no to Iraq. Iraq never had any connection to 9/11, as our stated reasons for going there were to find the massive amounts of deadly WMD's.

He may have voted aye to the NDAA, but his ex staffer, Eric Dondero, put out an article (actually meant to illustrate some negatives about Paul) that states:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq.

In hindsight doesn't that sound accurate?

It goes further to state:

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

and

At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide.

So to me, it sounds as if Ron was weary of this resolution and planned on saying no, until he realized that hed lose his staff and his ability to stay in politics. Lets face it, any one saying "leave those people alone" in that time would have been called anti-american. Never-mind the huge potential for abuse of power, the public doesn't care about that when they are scared.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

So isn't a bit hypocritical for Ron Paul to continue to talk against the very wars he voted to authorize???

So if I voted for Obama and now I absolutely hate my decision, I'm a hypocrite? Same logic.

He is just as responsible as anyone else is for our actions in Iraq and Afganistan...for all the lives lost...and for all the money it has costs us.

So are YOU and every other American.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

How is this a hit piece...it is his voting record???

And they are going after exactly who they say were responsible for 9/11...so why is he so against it now???

And shouldn't he vote on the NDAA out of principle??? None of his votes really matter...he is usually a lone wolf on most of his issues...so why not go back to DC and vote against it if he truly was so against it?

It seems kind of dishonest for him to claim he is very against something and then can't even make the effort to go an vote for it.


This is important information that some people may not be aware of. Ron Paul is out campaigning and is basically lying to everyone because he voted for the exact same thing that he is claiming he is against.

Oh, and he's a racist too. The newsletters prove it. End sarcasm.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


There is footage of him talking about this will have to find it where he states what I said and he was disappionted that they went to Iraq using his vote as he was only after Bin Laden not WMD

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I will agree with your accusations against Ron Paul in this matter, his vote is completely inconsistent with his stated principles. That is easy for me to do, I, being an outsider, have, as Americans say, no horse in this race Same won't be the case for his supporters, who are trying to convince others to vote for him. But, in my opinion, the less they claim the mantle of perfection for him, the easier it will be to do so.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

What's funny is that you think a thread can "fail"

I'm just presenting information that I thought people would be interesed in. It is something I found out about and was kind of surprised to find out that Ron Paul voted FOR the authorization of any and all military force to combat "terrorists".

I thought others would be interested in hearing this information too. There is no "fail" or "success"...there is only information being shared.

It's so funny that you see this as some type of competition.

Yeah, we all know what the first sentence really means: You feel successful when you poison the well with lies, therefore you have not failed because you can always dupe someone who doesn't have enough time to do a bunch of research to catch your logical fallacies. Yes, you are sharing information, but not all information is truth. You are a very talented disinfo troll. Congratulate yourself. LMAO!

a reply to: OutKast Searcher

True to the nature of most establishment Dems and Reps I know . . . your post is wrought throughout with misinformation, half truths, and lies.

In brief:

Ron Paul voted Nay on the passage of H.R. 2647 - 111th Congress (2009-2010) . . . so . . . what you said was a flat out lie (and, incidentally, whenever Ron Paul missed a vote, he always had good reasons for this . . . like . . . running for president . . . and even then, he still did his best to make it back as often as he could to do his job).

Regarding voting "Yea" for the authorization of use of force . . . you left out some crucial elements to this. If you read the actual document, you will see that it points to the War Powers Resolution sections 8 (1) (a) and most importantly, section 5 (b). But you didn't want to highlight these important elements, did you? 'Cause it kinda undermines your whole point here . . . doesn't it? Yeah . . . about all these lies . . . In brief, these sections of the War Powers Resolution make it very clear that this authorization is only for going after those responsible for the attacks, and those harboring them IF they discover another attack is likely (I paraphrase) . . . and here is a very important detail . . . that within sixty calendar days of the passage of the authorization, the president was SUPPOSED to " . . . terminate any use of (US) Armed Forces . . . unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of (US) armed forces . . ."

Well well well! This sounds nothing like what you tried to make it out to be! There is more to this subsection of the War Powers Resolution . . . but you can look it up yourself.... I would encourage you to do this.

Ron Paul would NEVER have voted for perpetual war. He has also always been very open with regards to his vote on this matter, and why he voted as he did . . . none of these facts are hard to verify . . . so . . . not sure how you missed all of this

That being said . . . it is obvious you are accustomed to dealing with people who are either too lazy or too stupid (perhaps both?) to actually research claims made by people like you . . . most Libertarians I know aren't like this . . . We actually research and verify. Bummer for you.

Ron Paul is the most consistent politician this country has seen, perhaps in the past 100 years or more . . . and no string of lies and half truths (the likes of which you posted here), will change this.