Ron Paul Straight Talk?
Presidential candidate Ron Paul, Rep from Texas, publishes a weekly column named Straight Talk. In his 21 May column on the War in Iraq, Paul refuses to take a position for or against the current action in Iraq. Instead he sidesteps the issue and calls for legislation that would end the original authorization to go to war in Iraq thereby forcing Congress to pass a new authorization or update the original. Does Paul seriously think this will be a catalyst for change?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Man is a Political Animal" Aristotle, Politics
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(11)
-
▼
June
(8)
- Can Democrats Follow through on Ethics Reforms?
- Immigration Compromise Still Alive
- Republican Debate: Dilemma for the Underdogs
- NATO's Missile Shield
- Iraq: Vital to US National Security
- Ron Paul Straight Talk?Presidential candidate Ron ...
- One for the Home Team As the details of the thwart...
- Who's Dream?I'm for sensible immigration reform, b...
-
▼
June
(8)
6 comments:
No I think all just a cowardly ploy...he's playing both sides of the fence.
He's repeatedly said he will draw down the troops immediately, first by taking them off patrols in the streets, then by withdrawal through organized military planning.
What's ambiguous about that?
Oh yes withdrawing patrols perfect. I'm sure that's exactly what Baghdad needs, no patrols preventing bloodshed. No patrols providing any protection for our bases. The green zone: a sitting duck.
And who wouldn't want to have "organized military planning".
Ron Paul: mere rhetoric, empty words, nothing more.
Interesting that he doesn't mention any of that in his column entitled "Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq". If his solution to Iraq is proposing legislation to end the original authorization and thinks that that will have any effect, I question his judgement. Based on the past 70 years of troop deployments, I doubt very much that any legislation that tries to influence how President Bush is conducting foriegn policy in Iraq, at the request of the recognized Iraqi government will be effective and is nothing more than hot air. So how does he really plan to fix what's wrong with Iraq?
His proposal is very interesting from a separation of powers perspective. You are right, and even he admits, that it says nothing about what should be done in Iraq. That way pro- and anti-war people can both support it. Instead it is arguing that while the president controls day-to-day military operations, only the congress has the right to take this nation to war. The original authorization has been satisfied ever since Bush declared "mission accomplished" and any further warfare should require further congressional approval. This is the constitutional position, but is highly controversial because Bush/Cheney's main goal is the Nixon-style expansion of executive powers. I would love to see Ron Paul's proposal get passed and have Gonzales try to fight it before the Supreme Court, what fun!
As for how to fix Iraq... Some problems may not be fixable by us, no matter how many guns we have.
I understand his perspective even though I don't agree with it. Here's another perspective: Congress authorized war, we defeated the Iraqi armed forces and overthrew Saddam's regime and are trying to help the newly elected Iraqi government stabilize the country so that they can rebuild. I don't believe the President needs anything from Congress, other than money to continue his work in Iraq and they recently gave him the money. So what does Ron Paul hope to achieve with his legislation?
As for fixing Iraq, the pen is mightier than the sword or gun, but Maslow suggests that food, water, shelter and security are required before people start fulfilling higher needs. That's exactly what the coalition is working with the Iraqis to instill.
Post a Comment