An Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
I love you to death... And I'm buying a lot of what you're selling (and have been for a long time). Congress should have fulfilled its duty to declare war, as you said.
But although we'd be better served by a your vision of nonintervention, we still can't get around the fact that we were attacked on 9/11. Whatever the flaws were in our policy that the enemy used for motivation, the act was still unjustified, morally.
Since we were unjustly attacked, we had a moral responsibility to retaliate and prevent further attacks. Withdrawing from Iraq before the situation is stabilized will do nothing to advance that end -- and will indeed hurt it, no matter whom is elected President.
I know all the talking points that tell us that "Saddam wasn't behind 9/11... blah blah blah."
That's really irrelevant. Saddam was a known sponsor of terror -- terror that had already reached our soil. The very definition of terrorism gives us the reason we need to remove such threats swiftly and forcefully. If anything, we've not been swift or forceful enough, which is where I think a formal declaration of war would have been very helpful from a practical standpoint. Obviously Congress was obligated to declare war, morally, if they really thought Iraq posed a direct threat to our national interests.
Dr. Paul, I admire and respect you for your integrity, rationality, and respect for our Constitution. Unless I'm terribly mistaken about you, regardless of what you do with your position here, I likely always will.
However, I'd strongly urge you to reconsider this particular opinion, or at least acknowledge that if you are elected President, you would follow a policy that respects the ends of the sacrifice already made by so many in our military (as well as our taxpayers).
Until you do, though I'd still strongly consider you as a viable option in the general election, I will never donate to your campaign and I'll never work for your election.
I won't be working for anyone else, either, but you were at least the one candidate I wanted to support.
But although we'd be better served by a your vision of nonintervention, we still can't get around the fact that we were attacked on 9/11. Whatever the flaws were in our policy that the enemy used for motivation, the act was still unjustified, morally.
Since we were unjustly attacked, we had a moral responsibility to retaliate and prevent further attacks. Withdrawing from Iraq before the situation is stabilized will do nothing to advance that end -- and will indeed hurt it, no matter whom is elected President.
I know all the talking points that tell us that "Saddam wasn't behind 9/11... blah blah blah."
That's really irrelevant. Saddam was a known sponsor of terror -- terror that had already reached our soil. The very definition of terrorism gives us the reason we need to remove such threats swiftly and forcefully. If anything, we've not been swift or forceful enough, which is where I think a formal declaration of war would have been very helpful from a practical standpoint. Obviously Congress was obligated to declare war, morally, if they really thought Iraq posed a direct threat to our national interests.
Dr. Paul, I admire and respect you for your integrity, rationality, and respect for our Constitution. Unless I'm terribly mistaken about you, regardless of what you do with your position here, I likely always will.
However, I'd strongly urge you to reconsider this particular opinion, or at least acknowledge that if you are elected President, you would follow a policy that respects the ends of the sacrifice already made by so many in our military (as well as our taxpayers).
Until you do, though I'd still strongly consider you as a viable option in the general election, I will never donate to your campaign and I'll never work for your election.
I won't be working for anyone else, either, but you were at least the one candidate I wanted to support.
posted by Cameron Beck at 1:14 PM
1 comments
