GZ
My only concern about Paul is his foreign affairs policy... it appears he would have done nothing after 9/11... correct me if I'm wrong...
There is no doubt that he would have acted. However, it is the “how” of the action that is important. It also goes beyond 9/11 and to the root cause. It was the interventionist policies which Dr. Paul has expounded on numerous times, that placed us in the situation that we found ourselves in on 9/11.
IMO he reluctantly supported Bush in Afghanistan, and it is evident that he argued for a different method of reprisal.
Prior to 9/11 he warns, November 15, 2000: house.gov
Excerpt from the above if you don’t want to take the time to read.
Our many failures in the last fifty years should prompt us to reassess our entire foreign policy of interventionism. The notion that since we are the only superpower left we have an obligation to tell everybody else how to live should come to an end. Our failure in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and the Middle East, and our failure yet to come in Bosnia and Kosovo should alert all Americans to this great danger. But no, we instead continue to expand our intervention by further involving ourselves in yet another sovereign nation. This time it's Columbia. By sending more weapons into the region we continue to stir up this 30-year civil conflict. And just recently this conflict has spilled over into Venezuela, a major force in South America due to its oil reserves…..
September 12, 2001: house.gov
Excerpt from above:
…The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.
When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal to meet our responsibility….
September 14, 2001:
house.gov
Excerpt from above:
….The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we're offered and doing nothing is unthinkable…..
It is obvious over the years both parties administration's foreign policy has left something to be desired…and I consider this to be an understatement.
GZ, you’re a smart guy, special interests aside, and the usual reasons why a candidate is not electable, do you really want to travel the same road - electing a politician who has sold his soul to big money and special interests? Considering the inevitability of the course any of the major candidates take, proven by history, is this the legacy you want to leave your grandchildren? Relative to Dr. Paul's positions, there are a couple of issues that I could take exception to, but by and large, where in the wasteland of the usual suspects can you find anyone any better?
Obviously his administration would be crippled with both houses at his throat, but wouldn't it be a hellava message that we send.
The congressman at this point in his campaign is like a stock without a sponsor. We the people must become activists, and take up the cause and sponsor a good, honest, and intelligent man who truly acts in the best interests of the nation and its citizens.
Again I invite you to read:
Ron Paul Speeches and Statements:
house.gov
Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk – a weekly column:
house.gov |
