Sigh. He isn't an isolationist because he doesn't want to bomb the rest of the world. He wants free trade. That makes him a non-interventionist.
As for the Huckster? He doesn't speak for me, and he absolutely lost that debate exchange.
"We broke it, we bought it?" Is the Middle East like Nordstroms? Is Iraq going to be our 51st state?
We don't own Iraq. It is a sovreign nation last time I checked.
Huckabee used the term 'honor' to describe a person who disregards their oath and tramples the Constitution to be 'divided.' Huckabee is promoting illegal, immoral and unconstitutional action.
Your reaction to that exchanges reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail- arms and legs cut off, wriggling pathetically and helplessly in utter defeat, nevertheless denying the obvious and calling out, "Have at you!"
Paul got his head handed to him, as anyone not gaa-gaa beyond rationality with Paul's nutty candidacy will recognize.
Paul is an isolationist because he opposes the use of American force and influence to defend our vital interests in the world, thereby defying the explicit Constitutional mandate to "provide for the common defense." In the unlikely event that Paul was elected, it would be he, not Huckabee, who would be disregarding his oath and the Constitution.
If you think Paul won that exchange, or even was otherwise than well and truly thrashed, you've either been brainwashed by an expert or listened under the influence of non-prescription drugs.
Yeah, Iraq is a sovereign nation. And we are fighting there precisely to make sure it stays that way. In case you haven't noticed, our objective is to maintain a democratically elected government in power; the objective of the other side is to subvert it.
Paul's case that anything Huckabee says or stands for is unconstitutional- much less illegal or immoral- is simply incoherent. This is not suprising, since he- like his supporters- seems to live not so much on another planet, but in an entirely different dimension. The thrashing this flaky curmudgeon will take in the caucuses and primaries will probably not have much an effect on you guys.
Paulistas don't "do" reality.You'll probably hold an "inauguration" in January of 2009just for yourselves, while Mike Huckabee is taking the oath from Chief Justice Roberts
One more thought: what's so difficult about the concept that, having gone into Iraq and fought a war there, we have a responsibility to help clean up the mess?
Oh. I forgot. Dr. Paul and his supporters don't believe in carrying out our responsibilities in the international arena.
As usual, Jeff, you're so caught up in imaginary technicalities and distinctions without differences that you miss the point.
When people shoot each other and bomb each other and so forth, it's called a war. And that's what Congress authorized on October 2, 2002, the resolution in question including the following:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
The war is absolutely both legal and constitutional, and the wording of the congressional resolution doesn't change that. We went to war in Iraq; George Bush didn't.
And even if he had, your indifference to what would happen to the people of Iraq if we did cop out, drop everything, and run is pretty darned chilling.
The President of the United States should be a grownup. Ron Paul is apparently not- not, anyway, when it comes to taking responsibility even for one's mistakes. And we as a nation made that mistake- a point Gov. Huckabee drives home rather well.
That's because there was never any problem in the North and the South. We got rid of Saddam, and that was it. The Mahdi Army, al Qaeda, and the sectarian groups have largely done there thing in Baghdad and a few other places where the surge in recent months has largely repressed the violence.
It wouldn't repress it anymore if we were gone.
So the evidence says exactly the opposite of what you say. And with all due respect, Jeff- as on so many issues, you'd be a lot more credible if you knew more of what you talk about.
You probably also wouldn't be a follower of simplistic extremists like Ron Paul.
Comments
As for the Huckster? He doesn't speak for me, and he absolutely lost that debate exchange.
"We broke it, we bought it?" Is the Middle East like Nordstroms? Is Iraq going to be our 51st state?
We don't own Iraq. It is a sovreign nation last time I checked.
Huckabee used the term 'honor' to describe a person who disregards their oath and tramples the Constitution to be 'divided.' Huckabee is promoting illegal, immoral and unconstitutional action.
He's a chicken hawk.
Paul got his head handed to him, as anyone not gaa-gaa beyond rationality with Paul's nutty candidacy will recognize.
Paul is an isolationist because he opposes the use of American force and influence to defend our vital interests in the world, thereby defying the explicit Constitutional mandate to "provide for the common defense." In the unlikely event that Paul was elected, it would be he, not Huckabee, who would be disregarding his oath and the Constitution.
If you think Paul won that exchange, or even was otherwise than well and truly thrashed, you've either been brainwashed by an expert or listened under the influence of non-prescription drugs.
Yeah, Iraq is a sovereign nation. And we are fighting there precisely to make sure it stays that way. In case you haven't noticed, our objective is to maintain a democratically elected government in power; the objective of the other side is to subvert it.
Paul's case that anything Huckabee says or stands for is unconstitutional- much less illegal or immoral- is simply incoherent. This is not suprising, since he- like his supporters- seems to live not so much on another planet, but in an entirely different dimension. The thrashing this flaky curmudgeon will take in the caucuses and primaries will probably not have much an effect on you guys.
Paulistas don't "do" reality.You'll probably hold an "inauguration" in January of 2009just for yourselves, while Mike Huckabee is taking the oath from Chief Justice Roberts
Oh. I forgot. Dr. Paul and his supporters don't believe in carrying out our responsibilities in the international arena.
He's an isolationist.
What "war", and who is "we"?
The formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq was defeated in committee.
Whoever it was that made a mess in Iraq should promptly go over there to clean it up. It wasn't me. It wasn't congress.
When people shoot each other and bomb each other and so forth, it's called a war. And that's what Congress authorized on October 2, 2002, the resolution in question including the following:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
The war is absolutely both legal and constitutional, and the wording of the congressional resolution doesn't change that. We went to war in Iraq; George Bush didn't.
And even if he had, your indifference to what would happen to the people of Iraq if we did cop
out, drop everything, and run is pretty darned chilling.
The President of the United States should be a grownup. Ron Paul is apparently not- not, anyway, when it comes to taking responsibility even for one's mistakes. And we as a nation made that mistake- a point Gov. Huckabee drives home rather well.
I learned something I didn't know at the Youtube Debate. In the north and south of Iraq, there already are no US troops and it is relatively quiet.
So, No. I don't know that Iraq would turn into bloody chaos. The evidence we have is against it.
It wouldn't repress it anymore if we were gone.
So the evidence says exactly the opposite of what you say. And with all due respect, Jeff- as on so many issues, you'd be a lot more credible if you knew more of what you talk about.
You probably also wouldn't be a follower of simplistic extremists like Ron Paul.