Re: "...tweak and tease and pinch and reshape the words all you want,"
I haven't done any of that. Just reporting *accurately* what he has said he stands for.
(Things he has said over and over again for decades now in some cases --- so the record is pretty clear about what he believes.)
Rather, I'd submit that you seem to be the one more often a bit hazy on the candidate's beliefs --- viewing them through your own perceptual lens....
Re: ...but if he recognized the threat he would have said something more like, "We should officially declare war so we can get the job done, and it would be official and legal."
Two quick points:
1) Has BUSH actually done that? (Called for a Formal and Constitutional Declaration of War?) No, he has not.
Has Rudy called for what you are asking for above? (No, he has not.)
Have any of the OTHER candidates for President - from either Party - called for a formal Declaration of War? (To my knowledge they have not.)
So, why would you hold Dr. Paul to a HIGHER STANDARD then you would, say, Rudy or Mitt?
2) I'd argue that candidate Paul has come THE CLOSEST to doing EXACTLY THAT of ANY of the candidates though: because he has FLAT OUT STATED his firm belief that the main reason the US has had such difficulty in the 'unofficial' 'wars' we have involved ourselves in since WW II, is because we have lacked the FULL SUPPORT of the American people that is ONLY GAINED when our wars are Constitutionally Authorized (which, obviously, can ONLY HAPPEN when there is overwhelming political support to do so).
So, he has pointed to the CORRECT way to go about the business of WINNING WARS... and has further stated that such a decision is a matter for the AMERICAN PEOPLE to make.
Any politician wanting such a Declaration of War needs to present his case to the American public for approval (& so we can remain united and strong in a clearly-defined war effort).
Wishy-washy and or ill-defined or partisan 'adventures' short of that however are nearly always recipes for DISASTERS for American interests. |
