As Heard on XM Radio's POTUS 08
A level of seriousness befitting the candidacy of a man seemingly dedicated to making Rudy Giuliani the Republican presidential nominee in 2008:Seriously -- don't Giuliani and Ron Paul remind you of Biff and McFly?
The Editor at IP
No - I don't think Ron Paul's son is going to save the world, or even ride a flying skateboard, for that matter.
ron paul is obviously one sick puppy...i mean, look at pearl harbor and the imperialist japanese: fdr, saw this credible, emminent threat and did what mr. bush, or any patriotic leader would do - he bypassed congress and went to a noble undeclared war... oh, wait...well, at least mr. bush had the nerve to attack the breeding ground for the terrorists... saudi arabia...hmm, ok, let me get back to you on this one...
It's...It's...a singin and dancin Pizza Slice? I'm going to be very confused for a few days.I just dont think I'd dress up as a cheesesteak and croon for Fred, no matter how dire the situation.
number9: So FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it was attacked? Just like Bush knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen?I think most people believe that in both cases, the Presidents were forced to reactAnd as for war against Saudi Arabia -- I know this one is challenging -- while most of the 9/11 hijackers were of Saudi nationality, it was the Afghan government that welcomed AQ with open arms, and encouraged them to operate freely.It's true we didn't attack the Saudis. We also didn't attack Sudan -- another nation where Osama happened to have resided prior to the attack, or the UK, or Germany, or any of the other friendly governments that at one time unwittingly hosted one or more of the plotters.Or did you think FDR should have gone after Austria to the exclusion of Germany, since that's where Adolf Shicklegruber was born? After all -- why focus on the government sponsoring the attacks. That's silly, right?
A new singer for the Village People. Wow!
I dunno, this looks ridiculous even by the standards of Paul supporters. I'm thinking it's satire. Maybe.
editor:thank you for the response. i am not making a judgment on who had foreknowledge - in either historical event. i don't know, and certainly dread to even think that the highest levels of government could allow such to happen. we know that america needed a reason, due to public opinion at the time, to enter the european conflict. my comment, again, is not concerned about anyone's motives after pearl harbor. i am looking at what the president's (fdr) response was in light of 9/11 and our response today.the entire point of my comment is focused on the question posed on the debate. that is, is there a requirement for the president to approach congress in order to declare war? i believe that the main disagreements are on where the line is drawn on congressional authority, and specifically how we define the president's right to go after a "fleeting" enemy with "imminent" danger.in my use of fdr, i sought to bring up an example where this nation faced a dire need for military response. pearl harbor was a very clearly defined attack, and in this case, it came out of a very well-defined enemy, a nation. fdr went to congress for a declaration of war because it was understood that he did not the authority from the constitution to do otherwise.as it was with ron paul, i did not argue the need or right to chase down bin laden. the proof of that is that ron paul is on record with his vote to authorize the invasion of afganistan. something the media wants to forget. recall that the afghanistan mission did not start immediately and the movements into iraq were much further down in time. the action in iraq can hardly be sold as "imminent" or "fleeting" - nor could it have been at the time.remember, we're not discussing the merits of iraq here. it is the authority of the president to bypass congress. the other maligned point which the media ignores is that it is precisely these police actions: korea, vietnam, bosnia, etc., that go on perpetually. ron paul has said all along that if the congress declares war, we mobilize, we fight to win, and we end it fast and come home.lastly, it would be very wrong to mistake ron paul for a politically left anti-war politician. he has not used the soldiers as fodder for political gain, and would not subsidize those on the left who have an almost glee when the conflict or a soldier is in a bad spot. his argument is against the military complex, the trillion dollar a year business and its corruption, not the constitutionally demanded strong defense.
Post a Comment