This "Open Letter to Neal Boortz Listeners" has a lot of good summary information that those of you holding out ought to carefully evaluate.
One other point I'd like to make to those of you who argue there hasn't been another (major) terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11--first off, we don't know, as a lid is being kept on things, but there were credible reports that among these have been some of the devastating western wildfires.
But even that's not the point.
If you look at the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, Bill Clinton could make the same claim about his presidency--that his competent and effective national security policies kept us safe until George Bush took over.
No?
[Via SameNoKami]
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Of course there were a terrorist attacks after 9/11. Remember weaponized anthrax sent to at least two senators and some businesses, plus a closed down post office? There were deaths as a result of that, too. But it's all down the memory hole.
Actually, the United States has treaty obligations which involve stationing American troops 'overseas'.
In the Constitution, Treaties hold the force of law.
Whether or not you agree with the various treaties, sitting presidents risk impeachment and imprisonment if they unilaterally break treaties ... no matter how noble their motives.
Ron Paul has never addressed this issue. In fact, he has never acknowledged it.
Ron Paul's promises to 'bring our troops home to protect our borders' sound good on the surface, but his Isolationist blustering is nothing more than political rhetoric. He is legally and politically unable to make good.
Not that this is different from any other politicians' promises, but it seems to me that as long as you are puffing his campaign, you ought to at least pay lip service to full disclosure.
Since you brought up the accusation and further accuse me of puffing, Jerry, suppose you tell me which specific treaties he will be "unilaterally" breaking.
Where has he said he will unilaterally break any treaties and which ones? And where has he said he would do anything in violation of his Constitutional executive powers, which is what you're saying he is promising?
You made the accusation, so it's up to you to prove your charge, not for me to go off searching just because you yanked a chain.
And since you accuse him of being an isolationist, suppose you square that with his stated policy:
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves...Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Yeah, that sounds real isolationist to me. But you evidently have some specific information that will prove he's just lying for his campaign like everybody else? OK, prove it.
And for the record, you may do "lip service" and puff--I do not, and resent the charge.
I did read the linked article, and because I'm not an expert in the specific matter, I wonder whether there's a posse comitatus (as currently understood/implented) issue with the use of troops on the border.
Next, letters of marque and reprisal. I'm offering an extreme example deliberately. Suppose someone with a letter of marque and reprisal located a high-profile, high-value target in a densely populated city, and removed it with a small nuclear device (it's the only way to be sureTM). The actor is legally a private contractor, but I have to think there would still be blowback against the U.S. (more on blowback at the end) as the issuer.
These are not insuperable issues, but all the ramifications should be thoroughly explored. Actually, a better use for letters of marque might be on the border, against coyotes.
Finally, John Derbyshire has opined that Ron Paul as President would pursue a "rubble doesn't make trouble" foreign policy. That certainly has a nice Jacksonian flair, and I think it has something to recommend it, but it too would produce blowback.
Which brings me to a final point. The whole notion of blowback, I think, is somewhat overrated. Anything anyone does has consequences. Some things one does are going to hack someone else off. If they are sufficiently hacked off to retaliate, et voila! blowback. Even self-defense can produce it.
The point I'm trying to make here is that there are principled arguments one can made for changing U.S. foreign policy, but throwing in blowback as a pragmatic consideration doesn't really cut it. However, I am open to other views, and in any event I plan to vote for Paul in the Ohio primary.
A treaty can be broken if the Congress agrees, and all other parties involved. Also in some other instances, like changes of government.
For those interested in the facts, there are links on this page for bilateral and multilateral agreements (Adobe Reader required):
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/treaties/2007/index.htm
Treaties are sacrosanct, just ask any American Indian.
Post a Comment