Now it’s Ron Paul’s turn
The new non-Romney, Ron Paul, is in trouble—just like his non-Romney predecessors were before him. Here’s a summary of the already-aired “racist newsletter” charges against Paul which have resurfaced at an opportune time for his opponents.
It’s pretty obvious Paul’s not guilty of racism but of negligence in not policing his newsletter better, way back when. I would never support Paul for the nomination anyway, not because he’s a racist (he’s not) but because he’s an example of extremely extremist (is that redundant?) libertarianism. Also, his foreign policy is particularly ill-advised.
Now, if Paul were running against Obama in the general—well, that would be a tough one. But, fortunately, I doubt very much I’ll have to seriously consider what I’d do, because I don’t think Paul has a chance of getting the nomination, although he certainly could win the clueless Iowa caucuses.
Did you hear that he endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008? He’s obviously a great judge of people. I wonder whether he would send a condolence letter to the NORKs on the death of KimJong Il.
I just don’t understand why people fall for total nuts. Some of his earlier fans seemed to be excited by the idea legalized drugs, so maybe there is a brain damaged component of his supporters.
A lot of Paul’s support may be coming from “independents” who are really Democrats trying to make the GOP look extremist. The caucuses are open to anyone, I understand. Look at how Obama played the birth certificate thing out for so long. I mean, really, was it that hard to release it? He just enjoyed making people look bad, even though they had a legitimate question.
Of course, nutjobs in the Democratic party are just indicative of the inclusive party of the big tent; nutjobs in the GOP indicate the party of hate-filled extremists.
Extremist libertarian – are there other kinds of libertarians? Non-extremist libertarians are called liberals.
Okay, it’s pretty obvious that Ron Paul is not a racist because . . . . ?
I think, given his age, race, and region, that it is likely that he was a racist when he was young. I am willing to believe that he has changed, but I would like to see some evidence for that.
Ron Paul is hardly a racist and most especially not by the standards set by our dear leader, Mr. President. Neither do I think him extreme in his libertarianism. There are Libertarians and there are Libertarians — just as there are ‘Democrats’ and ‘Republicans’ — the labels being only marginally useful in the ambits of party affiliation . If he seems extreme, it is only by dint of being other than the usual candidate — both parties paying lip service to the Constitution if they deign to give it any thought whatsoever — and nothing more.
Having voted against every irresponsible spending bill to have come down the Congressional pike for the last couple of decades is extreme only in comparison to the norm, i.e., spending at all cost. He alone of the candidates has introduced, several times, anti-abortion legislation; all other Republicans are merely pro life in assuming the stance and paying lip service.
Finally, his foreign policy ideas may be troubling, but only by way of having to extricate ourselves from what Mr. Paul would have done his level best to avoid in the first place — foreign entanglements the world over — surely this is in the spirit of the Founding Fathers and not at all extreme.
Okay, finally finally, he is the only candidate who believes the bankers and the Government have acted criminally and stupidly over the last dozen years — each taking their turn as one or the other — and all of whom should be investigated… (but by whom?). So he is an extremist in that he calls for an accounting, financial and legal — that’s just crazy and that’s not going to happen. Also not happening… Mr. Paul as the Republican presidential candidate.
I am no longer afraid of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. When he pointed out that “we all swear the same Oath”, he got to me. Either the Constitution is the supreme law in all areas, or it is a tissue of whims to be ignored at the discretion of whichever factions can amass a temporary majority.
Have any of y’all actually looked up what he has to say about foreign policy? Or are you taking the Big Media / Righty Establishment version? Can you see any difference between isolationism and non-interventionism? Can you justify the continued occupation of Europe and Japan?
I was surprised to find he’s so staunchly anti-abortion, and with a strategy to end the current farce of Roe v. Wade. That’s not a libertarian position whatsoever.
It shows how silly the situation is that someone who holds that the FedGov’s powers are limited by Article I, Sec 8 is an “extremist libertarian”. Is one who prefers a constructionist Supreme Court also a libertarian wackjob? Were the people who drafted and ratified the Constitution also all libertarian extremists? If you think libertarians are people who would grant an expansive list of Federal Government powers, I suggest we do not speak the same language.
If all y’all are actually in allegiance with the Constitution, Paul is *the* guy. His letter from the 80s explaining why he left the Republican Party is more accurately described as the GOP abandoning conservatism.
Really all y’all are about to disappoint me again.
expat, can you tell us why Paul endorsed McKinney? In context, showing that you’ve done some homework, and not just as ad hominem snark?
Don’t tell me why Paul can’t win. Show me where he is wrong.
(O.K., y’all can tell me he can’t win. You’re probably right. But what does it say about you and us that someone who honors his Oath cannot be President?)
And for all the “electability” fetishists out there, Paul will certainly draw significant numbers of declared Dems, anti-war Progs and squishies who are sympathetic to OWS and/or TEA.
He rearranges the entire map of factions. Will that carry any States? I don’t know. But he takes more away from Obama than any other prospect.
“his foreign policy is particularly ill-advised.”
Right – as opposed to the geniuses who got us into the disastrous Neocon Wars. Please!
This world is a competitive one and force or the threat of force is the only thing responsible for there being free men. Ron Paul can wish it wasn’t so all he wants. That doesn’t change the world as it really is.
I think when people turned traitor against the war and found that as the reason to vote for Obama, they probably should have thought twice about their claim that voting for someone smart like Obama, would make them smart.
They didn’t turn into geniuses. No matter how much they trash on Bush, they won’t turn into geniuses. Not going to happen. Ever.
Ron Paul has never showed an ounce of ruthlessness, that essential quality that is necessary to destroying the Left. Even if Ron Paul could do everything he claimed he can in DC, the Left would just eat him up and spit him out as their own zombie one way or another.
Even if you beat Obama, you haven’t beaten the Left: the real enemy of humanity.
“”Paul will certainly draw significant numbers of declared Dems, anti-war Progs and squishies who are sympathetic to OWS and/or TEA.””
foxmarks
This is a feature of Ron Paul, to draw in the degenerate and the flat out immoral vote? And to lump OWS and TEA “squishies” together as if there are any simlarities whatsoever tells me you have no idea what the tea party even is. Well here’s a clue. It ain’t Ron Paul. The Tea Party is in fact repulsed by the left of Obama nutjob.
foxmarks,
I got this link from Hot Air:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/21/ron_paul_hates_republicans_and_everything_they_stand_for/
No matter what the reason, an endorsement of Cynthia McKinney does not signify good judgement.
OMT,
Since 9/11, I have spent a great deal of time reading from many international sources about AQ, Islamic radicals, and Islamic culture in general. I don’t consider myself an expert, but I do know enough to say that Paul’s analysis of why we were attacked is the most simplistic thing I have ever heard.
I am also not impressed that he thinks Bradley Manning is heroic. Had Manning released a few pieces of classified data, one could make the case that he was a whistle blower. Had he admitted to the release, he could have been considered a conscientious objector. Instead he dumped loads of documents without any knowledge of their significance or the problems they might cause. There is nothing heroic about him.
A one trick pony on the economy, and after that one trick all the rest that’s left is lots of horse shit.
A naive, simple-minded, ill-informed, un-workable pacifism and Isolationism.
The racist and anti-Semitic writings in the newsletters he told an interviewer in a 1995 CSPAN interview he was putting out as part of an attempt to “educate ” people on political and economic issues,writings that Paul has said–at various times–he wrote/he didn’t write/he neither read or knew the contents of newsletters that went out to paying subscribers as representing his thoughts and with his name and picture on the front page.
Yeah, right! Who cut the cheese.
@ Wolla Dalbo
“A naive, simple-minded, ill-informed, un-workable pacifism and Isolationism.”
I’ll give you naive and unworkable – but that’s only because everyone else, both parties, aren’t likely to want to change the status quo. Ill informed? By what?
The Constitution? Staying out of other people’s wars is not pacifism – it good common sense. Isolationism?
Yes, from the global pathologies and policies that have us taken over the brink. No matter what anyone’s heart says the treasury says no – unless one cares more for the illiberal world than for one’s own country and it’s future… such as it is.
I enjoy your blog, Ms. Neoneocon, and read it almost every day (depending upon my work schedule). I do wonder at why there would be difficulty in choosing between BHObama and REPaul. The latter, for all his shortcomings, would be head and shoulders and most of the torso above the former.
Admittedly, I think that REPaul’s place is in the legislature, not as an executive. Even so, his “craziness” is a craziness that could not be brought to fruition, but, in the current political climate, would move the natiion in a good direction. In other words, he’d never be able to implement his ideals, but the compromises he’d put into place would be an improvement over the status quo.
expat:
Thank you. Your link does get to the point that Paul endorsed them only on the issues listed, not because he agrees with them on anything else. Too bad the article spent so much ink talking about each of the four are weird for reasons other than the few Paul agreed with. The rhetoric is aimed to make Paul appear to be just as crazy as the four, as if he agreed with their entire raft of crapola. He did not. The article is propaganda.
SteveH:
Your quote of my comment left off the context. I was pointing out that for those who think electability is important, Paul has strengths and advantages no other prospect can match. The TEA people would *love* to see the FedGov shrink by $1T. The OWS people would *love* to see the FedRes audited as a means to attack the banksters. Those two factions would be drawn to Paul for different reasons.
The squishies are a different third faction, my shorthand for the squishy middle, the independent/undecideds. They would like to see the banksters taken down and would like a smaller US empire.
Please tell me how Paul is “to the left of Obama”. Is it his stance for shrinking the size and scope of gov’t? His stance for eliminating abortion? Is a desire for secure borders and controlled immigration now a lefty position? Paul’s willingness to send forces across the globe to pursue terrorists and destroy their bases, is that what you see as left of Obama?
You call him a nutjob. I think you’re afraid to acknowledge how right he is.
expat:
I disagree with Paul on Manning. Manning is a criminal, not a hero. He took what was not his and gave it to somebody else.
Wolla:
How is requiring a Declaration of War or supporting Letters of Marque pacifist? How is recounting the *entire* history of US involvement with Mosaddegh, Hussein and the Mujaheddin evidence of naivete?
foxmarks,
Here’s a link to a video of Paul answering questions from states AGs in what I thought was a worthwhile format for examining the views of the Republican candidates:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1311022192001/ron-paul-terrorism-is-a-crime-not-a-war/
His answers are reasonable until he gets to 9/11. He’s had ten years to reflect on the issues involved in the GWOT. He obviously aligns with the dems in believing it is a criminal issue and not one of national defense. I ask, how is it possible for anyone who is informed to not understand that the Islamists have been at war with us since 1979? How is it possible to not recognize that 22 years of treating Islamist terrorism as a criminal issue has not worked? He cannot seem to grasp that the Federal Government’s primary job is to defend this country from foreign enemies. The problem too many have, and Rep. Paul is one, is that this is not a war against a sovereign enemy who wears uniforms, has a government, and adheres to the rules of war. We need new strategies and tactics for dealing with this enemy. Paul does not recognize this. That makes him ill equpped to be C-in-C.
I do agree, however, that he is no worse than Obama in respect to the GWOT. His domestic policies are, for the most part, unattainable, but far superior to Obama’s. That is why I would support him if he became the nominee. ABO -2012!!
I’m not a die hard fan of RP, but if its a choice of Mitt or Newt or RP, I chose RP. RP certainly understands the Federal Reserve Ponzi Scheme and the crisis posed by continuing the practice of the government borrowing 45% of every dollar of it spends better than almost everyone inside the Beltway.
Sergey says, “Extremist libertarian — are there other kinds of libertarians? Non-extremist libertarians are called liberals.”
Leave it to a Russian to state the American conventional wisdom that libertarians are extremists. 😉
I must be an extremist because I believe each individual is sovereign by the simple virtue that each of us is born into a world where we breathe the free air. We all have the natural, inalienable right to believe what they wish to believe. We all have the inalienable right to protect ourselves as we deem appropriate. (I don’t need no stinking permit to carry firepower.) I have the inalienable right to associate with whoever I please. I have the natural right to claim ownership of the fruits of my labor. I have the inalienable right to privacy with regard to my person and my possessions. I have the natural right to expect that government has no power to restrict my behavior as long as my behavior does not cause harm to others. If anyone, private or public, doesn’t respect my natural, inalienable rights as a free born person I am diametrically opposed to their claim to have sway over my choices on how I live my life. Them be fighting words.
9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: “Congress shall have power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..”
If believing that individual freedom under the rule of law, springs from the above, plus the other 8 amendments, makes me an extremist then I am an extremist. Deal with it.
” “GOVERNMENT IS NOT REASON, IT IS NOT ELOQUENCE, IT IS FORCE. LIKE FIRE, IT IS A DANGEROUS SERVANT AND A FEARFUL MASTER…” — George Washington
The US is not occupying Europe or Japan. Our troops are there by mutual agreement and their presence serves both our interests and those of the European nations and Japanese. Either we or they can close US bases on their soil with a one-year notice.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan were declared wars. Congress authorized them quite specifically. That’s all the Constitution says has to happen.
Ignorance, or disinformation, on easily researched issues like these keeps me from taking Paul seriously on foreign policy.
Friedersdorf’s argument about the poorly written newsletters may mean Ron Paul didn’t write them himself, but I have great difficulty believing he didn’t know what was in them. Maybe he isn’t a racist or conspiracy nut and simply let it go because they were bringing in lots of cash, but that doesn’t speak well of his character either.
I am sympathetic to some of Paul’s positions, but he is a flawed messenger. The libertarians need better.
“Both Iraq and Afghanistan were declared wars. Congress authorized them quite specifically. That’s all the Constitution says has to happen.
Ignorance, or disinformation, on easily researched issues like these keeps me from taking Paul seriously on foreign policy.”
IMO, congress passed the buck by not issuing a formal declaration of war. After 9/11 I strongly favored a formal declaration of war against any nation state that covertly or overtly aided jihadiists. I had and have not any problem with knocking down the Taliban or smoking Saddam’s ass. What I do have a problem with is this murky, half-assed campaign where we as a matter of PC refuse to come to grips with the real problem.
What you never hear from Ron Paul supporters is the dire consequences of a super power not fighting wars and spending tons of money to do it. As if “just say no” is a workable plan.
The truth is, you can’t be a super power with all its perks and prosperity without carrying a big stick and being willing to use it. There’s a reason most countries don’t have America’s same dillema when it comes to fighting. Number one, they aren’t super powers. Number two, they are mostly ___t holes so poorly run and corrupt till they are at the mercy of whoever decides to tell them how to think and how to live while being on this Earth.
Shortly after 9/11, I told a friend that I suspected Atta was probably ticked off because a woman who wore short skirts dared to contradict him in one of his classes. For a lot of these guys testosterone is a motivator and US foreign policy is the excuse. Qutb was outraged by a church dance in Greeley, Colorado. Muslim girls in the bannlieu have been attacked and raped for not wearing a headscarf. To ignore such things and blame the US is the worst kind of ignorance. Paul is so enamoured of himself and his principles, he can not see the real world. The rest of us have to live in this messy place and are humble enough to know we can’t make it perfect.
SteveH,
Well said.
Foxmarks–I find Paul’s take on 9/11 and the Islamic Jihad against us is uninformed, totally wrongheaded, and in and of itself disqualifying. He has bought–hook, line , and sinker– Muslim’s reasoning about and justification for their Jihad against us unbelievers.
Obviously, Paul–along with practically everyone else in power in Washington, it seems —has not actually read the Qur’an, the Hadiths, and the Sira–the three fundamental texts of Islam, nor taken the time to learn anything about the history of Islam’s 1,400 year Jihad against all “unbelievers,” which is mandated by these texts as a religious obligation for all observant Muslims.
Paul naively believes 9/11 and other attacks against us by Muslims to be in retaliation for our supposed “sins” as defined by Muslim Ideology; for us setting our “accursed and unclean” unbeliever feet (for that, and much worse, is what those three texts say of us unbelievers, labeled, as well, as “the vilest of creatures” and as “the spawn of pigs and apes” ) on “holy” Muslim lands (and, according to the claims of the ideologues of Islam, any land that a Muslim has set foot on is thereafter and for all time, “Muslim land,” and since Allah is the one and only true God, and Muslims “the People of God,” all the Earth is ultimately theirs, and we illegitimate, accursed unbelievers are squatters and occupiers), or because of us “bombing” i.e. of retaliating for various attacks by Muslims against us.
For in the ideology of Islam, since it is in obedience to the commands of Allah, the one and only true God Islam is the Holy, is the only true, correct, and justified way of behavior. And in this Muslim version of reality and way of thinking, in this ideology, Muslims are always right, those who oppose or resist Islam and Muslims always wrong. Moreover, any “resistance” to Islam and to Muslim’s wishes or actions is not just resistance; it is an active attack against the will of God, i.e. Allah and, as an “attack,” it must and will be responded to with legitimate, violent retaliation by Islam and Muslims.
If Paul had bothered to do a little studying, had read a little history, he might have discovered that Islam and Muslim’s Jihad against us unbelievers here in the United States commenced in the very first years of our country’s existence, when Muslim “Barbary Pirates “ —citing as their justification for their Piracy the Qur’an commands to fight Jihad against unbelievers–threated to cut off our absolutely vital sea trade and forcing our new Congress to pay an annual “ Jizya” to them in gold i.e. “protection money,” that consumed between 10% and 20% of each year’s Federal budget.
Paul and all those others do not understand the fundamental truth that Islam and Muslims wage Jihad against us, not for anything we might have done or not done, but simply because of who we are, the “accursed” unbelievers who obstinately refuse to kneel and bow our necks to Allah, and who stand in the way of Islam’s conquest of the World and all its peoples and nations; the position they took in 632 A.D. at the death of Muhammad, , the position the Barbary Pirates took in 1785, and the position Islam and Muslims still take today.
“IMO, congress passed the buck by not issuing a formal declaration of war.”
Authorization for use of military force IS a formal declaration of war.
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the FORM a declaration of war should take, so Congress is free to decide the form. AUMFs are the form Congress has chosen.
I’ll have to comment again after finding time to watch J.J.’s link.
Y’all should note that my first comment here stated I am no longer afraid of Paul’s foreign policy. Regulars here might recall I was boosting Herman Cain as one of the few to recognize Islam as a political system and an implicit threat.
As much as y’all might reject one version of propaganda about the motivations of Islamic terrorists, you may have become programmed by the propaganda that fits better with your preconceptions.
Paul is not a pacifist. He wants to kill the bad guys. But he prefers an actual, explicit Constitutional means, not the slippery AUMF stuff that Tom feels is an actual declaration. SteveH has bought the Big Media / Establishment characterization of Paul as a pacifist. SteveH is being fooled.
I am not afraid of Ron Paul’s policy. I am willing to let the Constitution be our guide and our limit. I am willing to allow regional conflicts to be settled or unsettled by powers in the region.
J.J.:
Watched the video. We all (you, me, and RP) seems to agree that 9/11 was a terrorist act. What I have learned in my recent study of Paul’s actual record is that he preferred a Constitutional “Letters of Marque” response, but voted for the AUMF to pursue Al-Q in Afghanistan.
That fact helps assuage my fear in regard to Iran (which is what everyone’s thinking about in this context). When presented with a credible threat and a sufficiently specific objective, Paul recognizes a duty to send the Marines. From what we know publicly now, Iran is very much like Iraq was, with a violent and crazy leader who has an incentive to greatly over-represent his military capability. If the intelligence came in that Iran was preparing for a real attack on the US, I assess that Paul would act to remove the threat. But we’re not there, and he is correct to call out warmongering.
Wolla:
Paul’s material does not depend on those religious terms or explanations. His explanation is more directly political, that past US policy has interfered with governments in the Arab and Islamic worlds.
I agree that Islam, if it is faithfully followed, requires non-Muslims be converted, enslaved or killed. The trick is deciding which factions within Islam are that faithful.
If I had a genuinely Constitutional President, my charge would be to define the political aspect of Islam as incompatible with the Constitution. I suspect that you and I are in some agreement that factions in Islam are in a perpetual war with non-Muslims.
The enemy decides when the war starts and ends. And so, if there is a grave threat, let’s actually declare war against the people threatening us. There will be much wailing and gnashing about Crusades. So be it. Get 50%+1 of Congress to agree, and let’s go get ’em.
Half-assed and intermittently-covert attacks do not win the war. Enduring occupations and nation-building do not win, and may lose the war, by bankrupting the FedGov and by destroying substantial liberty in our homeland through clumsy responses to a shadowy enemy.
If Islam is a threat, our perpetual delaying action serves our enemy better than ourselves. It is not like the cold war, where superior economics allowed liberty to outlast tyranny. When the enemy is content with 8th-Century poverty, he cannot be starved into submission. Like Paul says, go strong, win and come home.
Tom:
A formal declaration of war has significance in admiralty law, and affects performance of contracts domestically. It also shapes rhetoric and the culture. I suggest an AUMF is like living together and war is like marriage. Integrity requires formal commitment before G-d and the world.
All y’all:
I apologize for monopolizing the thread. I appreciate the opportunity to work out my thoughts. Maybe next year I will go back to posting at my own blog. 🙂
foxmarks: So your concern is not for the Constitution on that point, which the AUMF satisfies.
Second, you can hardly expect me to believe that a piece of paper with “Declaration of War” at the top would change the rhetoric and culture in this day. It’s pure wishful thinking to believe that the magic words “Declaration of War” would have changed all those knee-jerk anti-war types into pro-war folks, or anything like it.
Third, since we aren’t talking about the Constitution, what do you believe constitutes a formal declaration of war? What law sets out the rules for our government? And how does it affect admiralty law and contracts (do you have a link for that?)?
Lastly, an AUMF precedes a war, so it is the proposal, not living together. It is a formal commitment. I don’t know how God looks on it, but the US Constitution thinks it’s just peachy.
Yeah, so the ‘proposal’ metaphor is weak. I was trying to stay within your metaphor.
War itself is commanded by the president and carried out by the troops, which happens regardless of the declaration. The declaration, which these days is an AUMF (or whatever other form Congress decides to use), legitimizes the war under the Constitution.
Tom:
I am not convinced the AUMF satisfies the Constitution. I see it as a legalistic work-around, an attempt to subvert the law by making a more convenient law. You may call them magic words, but if it would make no difference as you assert, why not put my preferred incantation atop the AUMF?
I do not have handy link for admiralty law and war. In general, a declaration defines who may be attacked upon the seas and how long a combatant may be allowed safe harbor before that harbor is subject to attack. Domestically, “acts of war” are boilerplate in many contracts. A declaration more specifically puts assets at risk.
War is supposed to be a big deal. AUMFs are a means to get the FedGov involved in half-assed stuff that is not clearly in the vital national interest. The Founders’ warnings against foreign entanglements have been disregarded.
We do not have the Constitution of a “superpower”. If the United States is going to be the world’s policeman, we should man up at home and Amend as required, empowering the Executive to send the Marines anywhere on a whim.
My objective is not necessarily to change the minds of the knee-jerk antiwar types. If they cannot be persuaded, perhaps the conflict in question is not a vital national interest. The people, too, are a check on Federal power.
At best here, I am unlikely to talk down any neocon imperial bloodlust 😉 but to hopefully show that my position is Constitutional and derived from thought and consideration. Tying back to the thread’s topic, Paul’s conception of the use of force is not some zany fringe wackjob position. It is closer to what the Founders had intended, and I am not afraid to restore our integrity to their vision.
Tom:
I realize I failed to reply to a direct question: what do you believe constitutes a formal declaration of war
I will presume Wikipedia provides an agreeable toehold for discussion. There is a clear distinction made between formal declarations and mere authorizations. I want there to be no ambiguity, no need to appeal to any court over definitions, that the United States is waging war upon whoever we deem an existential enemy.
Integrity requires clarity.
foxmark:
Alas, I was off the net for a few days for Christmas and this has fallen off the front page. I doubt you will check back, but I think I’ve stated my viewpoint clearly, so I have little to add.
I still wonder why you don’t see the AUMF as the declaration of war I believe it is, and why you don’t believe it satisfies the Constitution. I will check this thread again over the next couple of days in case you do reply.
Just to clarify, the Constitution gives Congress the power to “declare war”. The words “declaration of war” appear nowhere in the Constitution. Also, the Constitution says nothing about the form declaring war should take, so Congress is free to decide the form. Do you disagree with any of that?
When Congress gives the President, who is commander in chief, the authority to use military force to achieve certain objectives, that to me is a declaration of war under the Constitution (though it may not be in international law, etc.). Constitutionally, I see absolutely no difference, and so I want to know why you see a difference. Where are you getting your information? What would you suggest I read that might make me reconsider?
Thanks for sharing your views on this.
Hm, let me also address one of your points.
The Constitution doesn’t say war should be a big deal. Constitutionally speaking, I see no problem with half-assed operations not in the nation’s best interest. Obviously, I would certainly have moral and pragmatic objections, but nothing in the Constitution forbids such things.
As far as the Founders are concerned, if you look at the Wikipedia article you linked, both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson engaged in Congressionally authorized military operations without a piece of paper that said ‘declaration of war.’ (“… to the shores of Tripoli” anyone?)
Anyway, again, thanks for the discussion. I’ll check back in a couple of days to see if you’ve replied.
Gads, ‘foxmarkS’ – I apologize for getting your handle wrong.