Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Upcoming - under Dem/Obama reign - wsj

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: bob ford <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Upcoming - under Dem/Obama reign - wsj
  • Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:22:30 -0700 (PDT)

But, Drew; as a culture, we would ,all, be better off , regardless of
personal beliefs, or lack there-of, if we did stick as close to the Ten
Commandmantas, as possible (say's not to murder, rather than kill, by the
way);

And, as a nation , we would be much better off to get back to the
originality of the constituition, as possible; and; make our representatives
follow that ...bobf

This is what Ron Paul said , last year, about this war, and he places, at
that point the responsibility on congress,; and I concur:

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

"March 22, 2007
Defund the War


by Rep. Ron Paul
Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.
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 preemptive 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, preemptive 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, Zawahiri, 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 preemptive
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. "


http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10708




**************************************************************************







--- On Tue, 10/28/08, DSanner106 AT aol.com <DSanner106 AT aol.com> wrote:

> From: DSanner106 AT aol.com <DSanner106 AT aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [Homestead] Upcoming - under Dem/Obama reign - wsj
> To: bobford79 AT yahoo.com
> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 1:13 PM
> You are probably right, but the constitution is not reviewed
> before votes
> are taken on anything else in
> Congress and Senate either. They view it as a guideline to
> be followed, but
> they never mind finding exceptions. It is sort of like my
> believing in
> following the ten commandments and stating I will not
> kill. That is true, but if
> someone were attacking my wife, kids, myself, or perhaps
> even my neighbor, I
> might justify my actions and go against the ten
> commandments.
>
> Drew
>
>
> In a message dated 10/28/2008 3:04:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight
> Time,
> bobford79 AT yahoo.com writes:
>
> We don't just think we can , Bill. With very few
> exceptions, we actually
> can. But, my point was that if the Constitution were
> strictly followed, the
> invasion, as it occured, would not have occured
> .....bobford
>
>
> **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All
> of your favorites,
> no registration required and great graphics – check it
> out!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
> http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page