In a world some thought we would never see, most Americans and much of Congress seem to agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy advice - at least on the question of a military strike against Syria... <\/p>\n
Submitted by F.F. Wiley of Cyniconomics blog, <\/p>\n
Polling results <\/p>\n
Editorials <\/p>\n
History <\/p>\n
Syrian rebels <\/p>\n
Quotes and excerpts <\/p>\n
Savage: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?) <\/p>\n
Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. <\/p>\n
The Powell doctrine stipulates that the US should use military force only when a vital national-security interest is at stake; the strategic objective is clear and attainable; the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs; adverse consequences can be limited; broad international and domestic support has been obtained; and a plausible exit strategy is in place. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original: In a world some thought we would never see, most Americans and much of Congress seem to agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy advice - at least on the question of a military strike against Syria... Submitted by F.F Continue reading
\nHas Ron Paul Gone Mainstream?<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"