Former Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, used his weekly column to argue strenuously against military intervention in Syria, accusing Congress of allowing itself to be used as window-dressing for an imperial president. <\/p>\n
Every member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the U.S. military, wrote Mr. Paul, whose libertarian views on defense issues typically place him far outside the median GOP position on such matters. But even if every single member and senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way. <\/p>\n
President Obama got a boost for his case Tuesday when the top two Republicans in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, said they support his position. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, is on board as well. <\/p>\n
Mr. Paul, a sharp critic of what he saw as the military adventurism of the George W. Bush administration during the last decade, goes on to argue that such U.S. interventionism is bankrupting the country. <\/p>\n
I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned, he wrote. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of U.S. bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by [Syrian President Bashar] Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by U.S. allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the U.S.-allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria? <\/p>\n
Mr. Paul concluded by arguing that the United States empire is heading for the same collapse as Rome if it continues down its current war path. <\/p>\n
What we desperately need is an overwhelming congressional rejection of the presidents war authorization, he wrote. Even a favorable vote, however, cannot change the fact that this is a self-destructive and immoral policy. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the original post here: Former Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, used his weekly column to argue strenuously against military intervention in Syria, accusing Congress of allowing itself to be used as window-dressing for an imperial president. Every member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the U.S Continue reading
\nRon Paul: Military force against Syria 'reckless,' 'immoral'<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"