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

Originally posted by Praetorius
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.

Yes, he makes excuses about why he voted for it. This isn't taking responsibility in my eyes. He voted to give the president at that time the powers to wage war on enemies in foreign lands responsible for those attacks, individuals he deems as the enemy. How reliable was intelligence back then?

I've read the post and Praetorius has explained Paul's position perfectly, essentially discrediting the point you're trying to get at. You ask why Paul campaigns against war when he voted for military action in response to the 9/11 attacks? That's almost as pointless as your last question asking why we support Paul despite his legislative shortcomings.

Being anti-war does not mean you're willing to ignore war when it's right on your doorstep. The 9/11 attack itself combined with a slew of false intel sparked a reaction throughout the country. We wanted to avenge our fallen & so the Congress authorized the use of military to pursue the terrorist. Paul originally voted for this as it seemed like a reasonable measure at the time, and I don't blame him. Does that mean he doesn't have the right to speak out against the wars after realizing their misguided and indefinite nature?

BUSH, Cheney, & the crew used the outrage of the American people to fuel these wars & occupations spanning over a decade; even Ron Paul could not have seen at first. Ironically, Bush was supposed to have been charged for war crimes; yet Obama pardoned everything done by the administration. And there's a reason why. Because Obama KNEW he was going to have to perpetuate these wars, keep Gitmo open, requesting and signing the disgusting NDAA provision, & take other unprecedented actions such as assassination. By not prosecuting Bush he disables the precedent of future administrations having to prosecute previous ones.

**OBAMA**, your president, is far more to blame for his lies & deceit towards the American people; & your attempts at derailing the Paul train are complete failures. I wish you 'luck' on the next try.

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!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


outkast your consistent efforts to paint a bad image of Paul on this forum are laughable. I know you'll cling and nitpick onto any questionable action made on his behalf with little thought or consideration

as many others have mentioned the country was in a reactionary mindset and was obliged to respond in some way..and the majority of representatives (and American citizens) were duped and misled. Just because he voted to authorize this power to the president does not mean he intended for the authority to be misused. He, along with many others (420-1), voted in what seemed to be practical and reasonable course of action to take at the time. While this may not have been the best direction to take, It is clear his decision had good intent (along with all of his other decisions) but we all know it lead to undesirable outcome

also your thread title is also very (deliberately) misleading! he did not vote to authorize the war in Iraq so you've really cut it for me and I can't take anything else you say seriously

en.wikisource.org...

This thread should go in the HOAX/Trolling Bin

Ron Paul wanted to find those responsible for 9/11
not invading Irak and Afghanistan
he was from the start against those illegal wars
he wouldnt had so many supporters if he was the same politician has all the others

for once the USA diserve a good REAL president
who is not controlled by a cancer entity in the congress
zionist is that cancer

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Hello, if you were to READ what is written instead of reading what you want to be written and if you listened to what Ron Paul says instead of listening for what you WANT to hear him say: He clearly states, the US SHOULD defend itself against a foreign aggressor, to which we can all agree that 9.11 was indeed such an act of foreign aggression.

So the point of your thread is to do what? Look for inconsistencies in Ron Paul's words? Try to create negative responses towards Ron Paul? Or did you start this thread wholly ignorant about what is written in my first verse? If so, shame on you.

There was no realistic way in which Paul could have gotten the resolution amended so that it gives exactly those powers to the President that he was willing to, but not more. So the only choices he had were to vote for or against it. Voting against it in the charged atmosphere after 9/11, was impossible. So he voted for it.

Nobody would have listened to any explanations he would be willing to give for voting 'No' on it. It would have been construed as not willing to go after those who perpetrated 9/11 and he simply would have been lynched.

ETA: The most logical thing would have been for him to abstain from voting on it. By the way, who is this Lee who was the only one to vote against? Is he still alive?

ETA2: Found this explanation from Ms. Lee in the house explaining her vote

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member and my
friend for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today really with a very heavy heart, one that is
filled with sorrow for the families and the loved ones who were killed
and injured this week. Only the most foolish and the most callous would
not understand the grief that has really gripped our people and
millions across the world.
This unspeakable act on the United States has forced me, however, to
rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction.
September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I
am convinced that

[[Page H5643]]

military action will not prevent further acts of international
terrorism against the United States. This is a very complex and
complicated matter.

This resolution will pass, although we all know that the President
can wage a war even without it. However difficult this vote may be,
some of us must urge the use of restraint. Our country is in a state of
mourning. Some of us must say, let us step back for a moment. Let us
just pause for a minute and think through the implications of our
actions today so that this does not spiral out of control.
I have agonized over this vote, but I came to grips with it today and
I came to grips with opposing this resolution during the very painful
yet very beautiful memorial service. As a member of the clergy so
eloquently said, ``As we act, let us not become the evil that we
deplore.''

Source. Certainly looks like she had more courage or trust in her constituents than Paul did.

This vote took place on September 14, 2001 and authorized the President to pursue those responsible for an attack on the US.

I would say that Ron Paul acted correctly.

In order to “Deny Ignorance”

Let us all understand that

Ron Paul Vote “Nay” on the House Joint Resolution 114, October 10, 2002 which is the Authorization to use Military Force against Iraq.

So, No Ron Paul has Never supported the War in Iraq.

This thread is just a trolling.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Yes, he makes excuses about why he voted for it. This isn't taking responsibility in my eyes. He voted to give the president at that time the powers to wage war on enemies in foreign lands responsible for those attacks, individuals he deems as the enemy. How reliable was intelligence back then?

What 'excuses' has he made for it? He's been pretty clear in his explanations and defends the decision. Please provide a link or reference to this avoidance of responsibility you're talking about. And there was no authorization for going after those "deemed" responsible, there was authorization for going after those "determined" responsible. A smallish difference, but if you check the definitions, a determination is more solid and based on evidence - which Bush didn't have for the Iraq link, hence AUMF 2001 was not used for Iraq - separate legislation (which Paul opposed) and UN approval - was.

And I would say the intelligence was fairly accurate, as it pretty much disproved the claims against Iraq being involved with al qaeda and 9/11 from the start, and as far as I understand it, the intel was solid in acknowledging that he (bin Laden) was still in Afghanistan as of the battle of Tora Bora in December of 2001, but was able to escape afterward (depending on which reports you want to listen to - he may have been killed at this time, by some accounts).

So yes, we had good intel. Unfortunately in the case of Iraq - dealing separately from AUMF 2001 - Bush continually disregarded or circumvented it to achieve his own goals.

Going IN to Afghanistan was valid, and Paul authorized it. Iraq was a completely separate game though, and our actions in Afghanistan clearly fell subject to mission drift and hence lost any valid authority under AUMF 2001.

Saviours come and go every four years and people eat their lies up. Is it mass insanity, stupidity bordering mental retardation or hysterical denial by sheep realizing the shepherd is really a wolf? People need to accept that the system and all those aligned with it, regardless of public act/persona, are corrupt and unacceptable. How can people fall again and again for these elite, handpicked "messiahs"? Furthermore, believing that the elite will leave their absolute power to the whim of the unwashed masses through fair elections and "rogue" fellow elite candidates is pure idiocy. Deny ignorance? Cool story, bros!

Originally posted by brokedown
In order to “Deny Ignorance”

Let us all understand that

Ron Paul Vote “Nay” on the House Joint Resolution 114, October 10, 2002 which is the Authorization to use Military Force against Iraq.

So, No Ron Paul has Never supported the War in Iraq.

The point of the thread was that he authorised the President to wage a war against any country, not just Iraq, on the President's own determination, that that country harboured or supported those who caused 9/11 or could cause future terrorist attacks against the US. The resolution does exactly that and Paul voted 'Yes' on it.

This thread is just a trolling.

No it is not. It provides at least one instance where Paul was too chicken to stand up for his stated principles. Of course, there were extenuating circunstances, but Paul doesn't measure up.

He still may be the best there is, but that is a different matter.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by wardk28

 

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

This is what I wanted to know.

Apparently what I got out of it was that when Ron Paul votes for military action, it is ok.

Even when Ron Paul grants unbounded authority to the President to go after anyone the President personally deems is connected to 9/11....it is still ok.....until Ron Paul says it isn't ok...and then it is wrong for the President to use that authority that Paul voted to give him.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


He voted to go to Afghanistan and that was it because sourse said Bin Laden was there then it went to Iraq there are plenty of places to go to that will show you this.

Originally posted by Ben81
This thread should go in the HOAX/Trolling Bin

Ron Paul wanted to find those responsible for 9/11
not invading Irak and Afghanistan
he was from the start against those illegal wars
he wouldnt had so many supporters if he was the same politician has all the others

for once the USA diserve a good REAL president
who is not controlled by a cancer entity in the congress
zionist is that cancer

edit on 1/13/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)

Ron Paul can't insert his intentions into a vote...it is either a yes or a no for the exact text in the resolution...he voted "YES". Granting Bush the authority to go after anyone he deemed responsible.

If Ron Paul doesn't like where that went...then he screwed up with that vote. It's kind of telling that people can't admit when the person they support screws up.

He seems more and more like "all the others"...he votes for something, then speaks out the other side of his mouth against it.

Kind of like how he votes against spending...but he makes sure to put in as many earmarks as he can to get that money.

reply to post by Observor

There was no realistic way in which Paul could have gotten the resolution amended so that it gives exactly those powers to the President that he was willing to, but not more. So the only choices he had were to vote for or against it. Voting against it in the charged atmosphere after 9/11, was impossible. So he voted for it.

So you are saying that he compromised his principles (which his supporters claims he is unwavering on) to make a politically convenient vote???

That doesn't sound like the Ron Paul who stands on principle and doesn't vote just for the politics of it.

Nobody would have listened to any explanations he would be willing to give for voting 'No' on it.

No one listens to him any other time...why should this time be different for Paul???

The most logical thing would have been for him to abstain from voting on it.

This is what I expected he would have done. But he didn't...so it kind makes it look like all his campaign rhetoric is just a lot of BS.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Kind of like how he votes against spending...but he makes sure to put in as many earmarks as he can to get that money.

Well, that just illustrates that you also don't understand the earmarking process well. As I've said before, Paul is a representative of his Congressional constituents, who (along with the rest of the US) he believes are effectively robbed by the government. Despite the fact that he will oppose the spending increases/bills himself if he doesn't consider them valid or properly authorized, he does also earmark funds for his district to see that they receive something useful back out of the deal.

Funds that aren't earmarked by Congress - designated for specific spending purposes - are otherwise left up to the discretion of the executive, with no real transparency at that point and no obvious benefit for his constituents. I'm inclined to agree with him when he says ALL congressionally-approved spending should be earmarked so we know exactly where it's going and for what purpose, instead of just being left up to the president and his crew.

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

He voted to go to Afghanistan and that was it because sourse said Bin Laden was there then it went to Iraq there are plenty of places to go to that will show you this.

The resolution doesn't specify Afganistan...it was used to go into Afganistan...but it authorized use of military force to go after anyone the Presidented deemed was connected to 9/11.

Bush did use the Al Qaeda/Saddam link, whether it was valid or not, to get his Iraq authorization passed. So he used the authorization Paul voted for as basis for his Iraq resolution. aka...he still said we were going after the terrorists in Iraq.

reply to post by Praetorius


It doesn't matter, it is inconsistent.

You can't tell someone not to do something and also tell them that if they end up doing it..you would like to participate in it.

It would be like me telling someone, "Let's nott rob that bank because it is illegal....but if we do, I get 1/2 of what we take". If I deem the robbing of the bank "illegal"...does taking any of the money from it ethical just because it was done despite my "vote" against robbing the bank.

It's hypocritial...it doesn't show principle...it shows he is taking out both sides of his mouth. It's doublespeak...saying one thing and doing another.