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

Seems a bit contrary to his rhetoric, doesn't it???

But in fact, Paul did vote to give the authority to use ANY use of the armed forces against those responsible for 9/11.

Here is the text:

thomas.loc.gov...:H.J.RES.64:

IN GENERAL- 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.

Here is the vote (find Paul's name in the long list of "YEAS": clerk.house.gov...


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


I'm just wondering if anyone knew that he voted to authorize this. I was just under the impression that he would have voted against...but I was shocked to find out that he actually authorized the military action.

How many of you are shocked to find this out? How many of you think this is the height of hypocrisy for him to vote for the authorization for ANY military action...and then turn around and campaign against it and act like he never voted for it???

Ron Paul supporters...how do you justify his vote for the authorization of military action as he is actively campaigning against it???





As a side note...should I even talk about NDAA??? He didn't even find it important enough to get back to DC and vote on it.
clerk.house.gov...

Maybe he voted for it because, constitutionally speaking, it is within the power of Congress to declare war. And he campaigns against it, because, again constitutionally, it is not within the power of the Executive branch to declare war. Though that's not a defense towards his actions, because I would honestly like to know the answer to this as well. It does seem somewhat hypocritical.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


As a respectful politition I believe he acted to please those who he represents. If enoughpeople of wich he represents contacted him , im sure he felt their was no other choice but to vote on their behalf. Regardless of his personal ideologies.

Are you not tired of your hit pieces on Ron Paul?

Who you gonna vote for? Obama, who continued every Bush program out there and even cranked some of them to 11? Or one of the neo-cons in the republican party?

As for the NDAA, one vote wouldn't made a difference. As for the Iraq war, he voted against it. As for the Afghanistan war, he voted to go against whoever helped 9/11, it didn't imply Afghanistan per say, but whoever was responsible. And he's talking about the Afghan war because obviously everything that was in the authorization (going after who was responsible) is not being carried out.

So try again with your BS.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Long story short, despite the popular narrative, Paul is not a dove - he just believes in Just War theory and doesn't advocate preemptive attack.

Prior to AUMF, Paul introduced legislation for Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and later authorized the government to pursue those who committed aggression against us. Unfortunately, the government went far afield and away from the scope of AUMF authority and intent, so Paul opposed the Iraq war itself - having nothing valid to do with 911 - as well as the PATRIOT Act.

Paul definitely believes in defending the US as needed, as well as responding accordingly to acts committed against us.

Are you serious with this thread? Only a little bit of research would give you the answer to this question. He voted to authorize the president to go after those responsible for 9/11. Bush used this authorization to go into Iraq. So is this suppose to be a hit piece on Ron Paul or something?

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.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Praetorius


The text if very clear

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.

With one vote Ron Paul authorized "the President"...so any President to use all necessary force against anyone who was involved with 9/11.

If he doesn't think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and doesn't think we should of gone there...he shouldn't of voted for a resolution that grants such a broad definition and a huge amont of power given to the President.


I just don't think Ron Paul has any ground to stand on when he is trying to campaign against these "wars"....he voted for them. If he thinks they have gone too far...that is his fault for voting for such a broad and open policy for the use of military force.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Lying????


From the guy who can't stop lying about Ron Paul....? YOU? give it a break.

Please show me the lie in this thread.

That saddest part of this thread is, you already know where he stands on war, declaration of war and national defense.

He clearly stands on the rational of granting huge and broad power of the use of military force without any clear defined goal.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

If he doesn't think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and doesn't think we should of gone there...he shouldn't of voted for a resolution that grants such a broad definition and a huge amont of power given to the President.


I just don't think Ron Paul has any ground to stand on when he is trying to campaign against these "wars"....he voted for them. If he thinks they have gone too far...that is his fault for voting for such a broad and open policy for the use of military force.

So, uhh...what did Iraq have to do with 9/11, again? What at-all substantial claims were made for Iraq ever having had anything to do with 9/11, with any actual intelligence backing whatsoever?

Silly argument.

EDIT:
Additionally, when intelligence showed bin Laden was likely in Pakistan - which Paul called years in advance of bin Laden reportedly being killed there - and our mission there moved far away from anything at all dealing with 9/11, Paul withdrew his support for obvious reasons. Doubly silly argument.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


He didn't suggest the use of military force to target the enemies?

Hello? HR 3076?????????

Now you're just spewing pure crap.



By the way, he voted against the Iraq war resolution because there was no actual premise of going in and we all know how that went and how Iran will go.

He has been very open about authorizing Afghanistan but being there FOR THIS LONG is what he deems as INSANITY.


Outkast, another one of your anti-Paul threads have failed....

reply to post by Praetorius

So, uhh...what did Iraq have to do with 9/11, again? What at-all substantial claims were made for Iraq ever having had anything to do with 9/11, with any actual intelligence backing whatsoever?

Silly argument.

According to the resolution passed...it doesn't need any intelligence backing it at all.

Which is why I would think you would be upset with Ron Paul granting that much power to the President.

Ron Paul voted to grant power to the President for him to soley decide who may have been responsible and go after that person, country, group....whoever.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned...

Ron Paul can't complain about the President using the power that HE gave him.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
You're missing the point. The president never actually determined such, as he had no intelligence reasons to do so. He abused the scope of the legislation to feed us verifiable lies and address a long-standing desire of various Washington insiders.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to either defend these wars now, or state that Paul authorizing valid response under the pretext that the president might validly pursue those *actually* thought responsible (instead of just lying to secure pretext) argues against his consistency?

Very lame, OutKast. You are moving steadily downhill in my respect book, friend. "OMG - Paul authorized valid legislation without knowing the president would abuse it toward his own personally ends - damn you, Ron Paul!!!"

Whatever.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I've actually seen a video where he addressed this on Youtube. Basically, he supported the tracking down and apprehension of the suspects. To not want to take action against people who blew up two skyscrapers would be more than pacifism, that would be inhuman.

What Bush did, however, was take that inch and he stretched it out for over a mile and used it for a war he wanted all along.

Ron Paul (in that video) was pretty candid about it and was surprised at the action that was actually taken.

If somebody knows what I'm talking about, please post it.

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.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Your missing the point. The president never actually determined such, as he had no intelligence reasons to do so. He abused the scope of the legislation to feed us verifiable lies and address a long-standing desire of various Washington insiders.

That's the thing...there is no "scope" in that resolution. It didn't require the President to have any intelligence or any reason at all except that HE deemed it correct. From the rhetoric that Ron Paul spreads...I would have thought that he would be very against this kind of open ended resolution.

That is what I was shocked about.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to either defend these wars now, or state that Paul authorizing valid response under the pretext that the president might validly pursue those *actually* thought responsible (instead of just lying to secure pretext)?

Where am I trying to defend either of these wars? Please point that out to me.

My point is that Ron Paul seems to have gone against all his "principles" with this vote.

Very lame, OutKast. You are moving steadily downhill in my respect book, friend.

If someone presenting facts makes you loose respect for someone...well that is your choice.


Tell me, personally, do you agree with Ron Paul's vote on this?

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???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I agree with your implications of Ron Paul.

I remember 4 years ago when everyone thought Obama was the savior this country needed.

Now it's Ron Paul...

Vote him into office and I promise, everyone will be so disgusted by his actions in four years that nobody will admit they voted for him.

Just like every other president.

Then in four years there will be a new false-savior.

Unbelievable.