Congress Must Admit Its Mistake and Repeal the Authorization to Go to War

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Note that this statement of affairs is written by a republican congressman from Texas.

-------------------------------

Congress Must Admit Its Mistake and Repeal the Authorization to Go to War

The War Funding Bill

By Rep. RON PAUL

The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.

If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.

Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation-- the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.

But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.

Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war.

We won't solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won't help our troops.

Here's a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.

If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it.

The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We're so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution-and avoid wars that have no purpose.

The claim that it's unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent.

We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, pre-emptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq.

It's amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq.

Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It's time we woke them up.

We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.

In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda's goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, "come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range."

Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year's budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.

We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We're dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy--an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us.

And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it's supposed to protect-- for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.

Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.

Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.

Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.
 

Amfan1

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 11, 2007
53
0
0
Crystal Lake Il
Note that this statement of affairs is written by a republican congressman from Texas.

-------------------------------

Congress Must Admit Its Mistake and Repeal the Authorization to Go to War

The War Funding Bill

By Rep. RON PAUL

The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.

If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.

Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation-- the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.

But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.

Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war.

We won't solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won't help our troops.

Here's a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.

If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it.

The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We're so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution-and avoid wars that have no purpose.

The claim that it's unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent.

We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, pre-emptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq.

It's amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq.

Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It's time we woke them up.

We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.

In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda's goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, "come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range."

Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year's budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.

We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We're dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy--an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us.

And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it's supposed to protect-- for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.

Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.

Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.

Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.
Everything he said and Bush should be impeached and sent to live in Sadr City.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
168
63
Bowling Green Ky
Note ---this was banner carried by your freedom of speach commrades--Chad

"**** the troops"

It's too late for Saddam --but UBL-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and every other terroist are with you on matter--huddle up!

P.S. They won't ever get te funding repealed but I like idea of getting these votes on record ;)

I have idea most americans have had it with liberals four letter words and burning troops in effigy--I have an idea a day of payback will be approaching---soon:)
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Could you imagine if this was Clintons war? I wonder if dogs or all these phony neocons would be this big of a supporter?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
168
63
Bowling Green Ky
Heres your boy's Sponge--
Appears the terrorist even lent them thier masks to avoid detection --

http://warrenzevon.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1174411542

---and you must never read anything here--have stated numerous times I was for Bill's move into Somolia--it was the way he left I didn't care for--letting them drag our soilders through street and burn them---of course anyone can see from photo's above that doesn't mean a lot to some elements of our society.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
i saw a few of our soldiers dragged, burnt, and hung in the streets of iraq and we are still fighting:shrug: and losing by the way, because they have been put in an impossible situation.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Heres your boy's Sponge--
Appears the terrorist even lent them thier masks to avoid detection --

http://warrenzevon.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1174411542

---and you must never read anything here--have stated numerous times I was for Bill's move into Somolia--it was the way he left I didn't care for--letting them drag our soilders through street and burn them---of course anyone can see from photo's above that doesn't mean a lot to some elements of our society.

Are you kidding me with that silly web site? If i dug deep enough im sure i can find someone in our country that enjoys the taste of shit.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
DTB gets obsessed with the 0.01% that everybody hates, and then claims that they are heros of the anti-Iraq war crowd.

Dogs, does anybody here post pictures of a Klansman lynching a black man and claim that they represent your view, simply because they are a Southern conservative?
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
From that same site dog

Dance, Foxholes, Dance!
In the light of Fox News scrambling to maintain the thinnest veneer of "balance" after Democrats refused to lend them respectability, I thought it might be time to point out something I witnessed first hand as a public affairs sergeant in Afghanistan. I call it the "Fox News Two Step."

You see, because my position was apolitical, very few of the journalists knew of my personal political leanings. I was, to them, just the guy who would get them on flights (and sometimes travel with them) to distant forward operating bases. When I wasn't in the field covering my own stories, I served as sort of a liaison between journalists and field units, getting writers, photographers and broadcasters on the ground to write about the war and answering their questions when they called. In other words, about half my job was to be a info source and/or travel agent for journalists.

On more than one occasion, I worked with Fox News producers and reporters. Once, in Herat, I saw one of the Foxholes approached by a couple of soldiers. One of the soldiers said he was glad they could finally talk to a "conservative" reporter. The reporter laughed and said, "Someone's got to balance out the liberals." But, later, I ran into that same reporter in Bagram. He wanted an interview with some soldiers and, when I grabbed one at random to ask if he wanted to talk to Fox News, the soldier--an Army captain--said he didn't, because, as a Democrat, he wasn't a fan of the network's politics. The reporter, shaken up, said that was ridiculous. The network had no politics, but only told the truth. "Whatever," said the captain and walked off. The reporter, after a few beats narrowed his eyes at the soldier's back and quietly hissed, mother****er.Just before Thanksgiving, 2004, a Fox News producer with whom I'd worked a number of times in Kabul and Bagram showed up on Bagram Air Field to shoot what military PA people call "Hi Moms"--the little snippets of video of service members saying "I'm Corporal Bill Jones from Paducah, Kentucky and I want to say 'Happy Thanksgiving' to my wife, Sheila and my parents Don and Lorraine in Louisville." I was confused about why he would be doing this. My unit--and every PA unit--shot hundreds of these every year for holidays, the Super Bowl, the Army/Navy game, etc., and provided them free of charge to all who asked for them. When I asked the producer why he had come, he said he'd had the same question when he was told that he should know better. It was "part of (his) contract," he said, to get on his knees "and give Bush a blowjob" every month or so.
I don't think it's necessary to rat these guys' names out--though they're written in my notebook alongside where I scrawled what they said--because one of them I thought was a pretty good guy, but these are just two of the instances of clear bias on the part of Fox. Many of the questions they asked seemed designed to lead to soundbites declaring everything in Afghanistan just wonderful, while other reporters seemed to want to tell a story well and thoroughly--CBS's Lara Logan, CNN's Ryan Chilcote and Newsweek's Tim McGirk deserve special attention. (Only once did I meet a reporter with a clearly anti-US, anti-military bias: Carmela Baranowska, who treated US bases like free hotels, ate up more than her share of MREs, once washed her dainties with the Marines' limited drinking water at a FOB and then, when she was finally kicked off the bases for being useless, disappeared. After we scrambled the OHSHIT scouts to track her down, she popped back up on the radar, complete with a convenient and completely bullshit story about Marines terrorizing Afghans. I can't and won't go into all the reasons her career-enhancing documentary is ridiculous, but you'll just have to trust me on this.)

I guess the reason I got to see a behind the scenes performance of the "Fox News Two Step" was because I took my job seriously. I knew Americans weren't above reproach in Afghanistan, but I also saw that 99 percent of service members really wanted to help people. I believe in the military, in service and I believed in what we were doing in the country (though some of the choices made by Karzai and Khalilzad still make me want to perform an autolobotomy by banging my head against a wall). Because I was so obviously a cheerleader for soldiers, I suppose the Fox reporters just assumed I was a pro-Bush guy. But my experience is just another version of what you can see on Fox every day, ratcheted up to the nth degree. When Fox's anchors accuse Democrats of rooting for terrorists or Bill O'Reilly rails against "Secular-Progressives"--wink, wink--but the network's spokespeople still claim to be balanced when their Republicanism shows, you're seeing the FN Two Step on a level only a tiny bit subtler than the admission of proverbially fellating George W. Bush.
(Although the fact that the network has recently kicked off two awful, awful right wing "comedy" shows seems to be giving the trick away, no?)

Since everyone with half a brain and basic cable knows that Fox is a Republican house organ, why do they even do this dance at all? Matt Stoller found some evidence today suggesting that, despite Fox's high ratings, it might not pay that well to cater to the old and crotchety demographic. If it became too obvious what they were doing, the median age of O'Reilly Factor viewers might slip all the way up to dead. The Democratic refusal to hold a debate on Fox is not only smart in the short term--a fact proven by the results of the last Fox-hosted Democratic debate--but will, in the long term, also serve as another nail in the coffin of Fox's credibility. And, since the network is a proven enemy of the Democratic party (and the truth), that's a good thing.

So anyone who wants to see Democrats do well or simply cares about seeing candidates involved in an honest debate about the issues should be happy the Dems dropped Fox as a host. The national party should ignore anyone who acts like it was a bad idea. And those sounds of outrage you hear from the Fox studios? Those are just the cries of increasingly irrelevant blowhards, scared for their paychecks and two-stepping as loudly as they can.

Update: As should be clear to you by now, I did not say that "Fox News reporters in Afghanistan think American soldiers there are 'mother****ers.'" I said that a Fox reporter called a soldier a mother****er. Truth be told, I've called a few soldiers that myself (and at least a few of them were--and are--my dear friends). The word isn't the issue. What is important here is that I, and, I'm sure, other PA types, got glimpses behind the "fair and balanced" curtain to see the withered Roger Ailes pulling pro-Republican levers. Not everyone gets that chance.
posted by Nitpicker at 7:01 PM
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Note ---this was banner carried by your freedom of speach commrades--Chad

"**** the troops"

It's too late for Saddam --but UBL-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and every other terroist are with you on matter--huddle up!

P.S. They won't ever get te funding repealed but I like idea of getting these votes on record ;)

I have idea most americans have had it with liberals four letter words and burning troops in effigy--I have an idea a day of payback will be approaching---soon:)

I tell you my friend, you are so far off tilt these days, I'm getting worried. You seem to have a tough time staying on point - which is understandable. You are veering very close to the old Manson days...lumping posters in with the people you routinely criticize, and then take your posts from there. It's simply weak, but you do it more and more when defending a position that is rapidly losing support.

In case you hadn't noticed, most americans voted for liberals in the last election, and have had it with the conservative, deceitful administration. The results back that up, I don't have to post any personal spin. I know you have to...go ahead. It doesn't make it true, of course, but go ahead.

And exactly to my point in another post, you want to get votes on record when it comes to voting for the repeal of funding (read, democrats), and then put up a spinning smokescreen when pointed out that Bush is going to veto that very bill. When democrats had reservations about extras and eternally giving Bush cash for his purposes, they were criticized by you. When they vote for it, the are criticized by you. When Bush says he'll veto it, that's ok with you. It's entirely defending a minority opinion that you have steadfastly argued for many years now, and you stick with it. Thankfully, in my opinion, most Americans don't feel compelled to defend these people to a fault. Admitting failure, and being wrong, can be cathartic. It shows character, and establishes credibility. The inability to do that shows shallowness, and diminishes any credibility.

Welcome to the conservative cabal. Carry on...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
168
63
Bowling Green Ky
Smurph If it was 1 % I wouldn't say a word--do you not think code pink--moveon-crew and most liberal blogs in general aren't on same page with these idiots.

Chad
I think some things should be brought to light--

---When you can't tell your left wing radical protests photo's from those of radical muslims

--When liberal press and radical muslim press share photo's and articles.

---When liberal objectives of war is same as terrorists.

---When we capture brutal dictators and X liberal Attorney Generals defend them.

Ect Ect Ect

Now to the issue of your post--on the recent vote in the house.

Saw Pelosi cheesing about it like she did something and had to laugh--not and the vote but how she fell in trap--let me forwarn you how this will go down--she has got herself in trap for which there is no escape.

This will now have to come to Senate--and GW and gop will make sure there are no pork barrel projects included that got it passed in house.

The Dems will be forced to go on record and vote on withdrawel of funds--They lose either way--it is a matter of who wrath they receive --the american people if they vote no funds for troops or the liberal left if they vote for funds. If Pelosi thinks its been a pain with the code pinkers camping out at her house lately--she hasn't seen anything yet :)

I told you after elections that it was blessing that Dems won majority--to give folks a look at other side for 2 years before pres elections--they are seeing exactly what I expected--and it is impossible to seperate the Dem party from their liberal radicals now--which is unfortunate but might force the moderate Demas to put the radicals where they belong--out of business.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top