Views From Within

Internet Political Prophecies And Subversive Material For Cool People

Open Letter: Shame on You, Ron Paul!!!

Posted by jeremiasx on July 13, 2007

(UPDATED: It has come to my attention that Dr. Paul did not vote for this bill because it actually included funding to EXTEND the war and that would compromise with his position on immediate withdrawal. More evidence of Dr. Paul not playing “the game” with our troops. I hereby retract MOST of these words though I strongly suggest that he releases more briefings from his campaign staff AT LEAST on why he chose to miss major votes like this one to avoid knee-jerk reactions like mine.)

Dr. Paul,

After huffing and puffing about how you OPPOSE the pre-emptive and unlawful war of aggression in Iraq, you missed an historic opportunity to help END the war in missing an important vote on H.R. 2956 (The Responsible Deployment From Iraq Act, which requires a timetable for exit of US Troops) and for this…I have to say…SHAME ON YOU.

YOU MISSED THE BOAT (VOTE) THIS TIME!!!

Was this not a perfect opportunity to help end the war responsibly? Was there something fatally flawed with the bill? What gives???

It appears that you may have your priorities misplaced, sir. I am sure that your campaign is an important part of the idea of reforming and redeeming our nation, but by missing this vote and not even saying why you didn’t get back to vote I am losing faith in you as a potential candidate. I’ve supported you strongly in the past, but are you a man of principle and integrity and do you walk the walk…or do you just talk the talk?

Please help me understand this.

J.T. Scott
Views From Within
Editor-In-Chief

Advertisements

22 Responses to “Open Letter: Shame on You, Ron Paul!!!”

  1. bret said

    “Responsible Redeployment” sounds like 1984-style doublespeak. Did you not catch his interview with Tucker or Wolf Blitzer? I’m pretty sure in one of those two, he said there was already plenty of money in the pipeline to bring the troops home by years end. And by home I mean THE UNITED STATES, NOT SAUDIA ARABIA OR QATAR OR ANYWHERE ELSE. This bill was just more funding – more money the country doesn’t have, thus another mortgage on our futures – to continue the fight into 08, which IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WANT. Why do they want it? They want it to be a general election issue, of course. Anyone who is paying attention can see that.

    This is a rather irresponsible blog post. You should look a little deeper before you start throwing stones.

  2. jeremiasx said

    I believe it is more irresponsible for Ron Paul not to vote on it. We do have pressing needs to deal with, that we’ve created mostly, around the world. Responsible deployment would mean IDEALLY to bring the troops home, but we have other areas to deal with in the world. This separates the realist from the idealist, I suppose.

    If Ron Paul is not satisfied with redeployment and requires ONLY a solution which involves complete withdrawal without a strategic repositioning of our forces then he is apparently not as smart as I previously hoped. However, I think that might just be YOUR assertion more than his own personal beliefs on the matter.

    I’ll admit that my reaction to this was harsh, but we need to be vocal when politicians act contrary to their previously stated opinions and intentions.

    Thanks for your comment. I’m sure I’ll get a lot of Ron Paul apologetics and probably even outright hate mail from this post. I’m okay with that.

  3. graham said

    you are so full of ____ jeremiasx, you and your America hating NWO scum are noot going to ruin pauls campaign……what a
    —–

  4. jeremiasx said

    Graham: Are you kidding me? Have you read any of my other posts?

  5. Fluffy said

    I seriously doubt that Paul is included in the discussions of the majority party regarding when such matters will be brought to a vote. He was probably en route to his Google appearance. Occasionally during a Presidential campaign you won’t be able to cancel a long-scheduled event to make it to a vote. Had his vote been necessary for passage of the bill, I might be more upset about it. It’s not like everyone doesn’t know how he would have voted, or like he would have been making some kind of new statement here.

  6. jeremiasx said

    I’m not going to give him carte blanche because he had an important appearance or because the vote passed. He’s not a psychic. Sorry, but I think he should be trying to lead the way by his actions in Congress if he’s going to lead the way for our nation.

  7. Fluffy said

    Pelosi can bring measures like this to the floor of the House whenever she likes. As a practical matter, if he attempted to keep his schedule clear for any moment when she might schedule an Iraq vote, Paul would be unable to leave Washington at just about any time. He’s voted for previous withdrawal measures, including the votes denying funding in the absence of a timetable for withdrawal. In any event, the important vote in any Iraq matter at this point is the veto override vote, which I’m confident Paul will make, even though it appears doomed to failure based on the outcome of the first vote.

  8. Fluffy said

    Besides, your text above implies that you believe Paul missed this vote because he’s afraid of making such a vote [“walking the walk”] and that’s just absurd, as the recent vote condemning Iran and starting the drumbeat for war against that country made plain. He’s just on the bottom of too many 400-1 votes for there to be any implication that there’s a vote he’s afraid to cast.

  9. tsoldrin said

    Err, did you read the bill or just watch people talk about it on tv? There’s nothing in it that redeploys anyone anywhere. It asks the president and secretary of state to give details of how many troops are needed for certain missions. It’s a hollow gesture by the democrats for political points.
    http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr2956_txt.pdf

  10. jeremiasx said

    The storm was brewing on Capitol Hill and how Ron Paul missed the call of the thunder at this critical moment in legislative history for the sake of what amounts to ultimately be early campaigning at a Google function? My God man…surely he has a jet at his disposal now that he has raised more money than many of the so-called “top tier” candidates. He could have flown back for a vote.

    What “Google appearance?” Is it MORE important to be hanging out with Google in lieu of being in his seat for the vote? In further addressing that: why on earth should Ron Paul be supportive of Google considering it’s history of walking lock-step with the Chinese censors and it’s probable secretive pandering to our own red, white and blue would-be gestapo domestically? Capitalism can be wonderful but these guys are walking all over the line. Anyhow, I digress.

    I’m loving the discussion and commentary so far and I’m still proud of all that Ron Paul has done to revive the political conversation in this country. Don’t forget, I supported Dr. Paul early on in this deal, and I’m not saying that I don’t still support him. I’m just hoping that he will address this in some way. I also question his campaign manager’s ability to have already headed off this one at the pass.

    So…for Ron Paul’s sake, I hope he remembers that his sworn duties include representing his constituency and doing his very best to help move this country in the right direction in the Congress. He’s done more than most in that regard, especially on behalf of laudable ideals as opposed to hollow measures performed at the behest of lobbies or party seniors. He’s a real person. Sometimes, that’s what makes me afraid for his ability to succeed in the venture for the presidency.

  11. robert m. peters said

    This bill, like so many of the others posited by the Democrats, should not be supported by anyone who want to end U.S. interventions abroad, who wants to end this current war and who wants to actually bring the troops HOME and not merely redeploy them.

    Ironically, I, and I believe Dr. Paul as well, would hold that his bill is unconstitutional because it is an attempt by the legislative branch to manage a war which is the legitimate domain of the executive branch.

    The role of the legislative is to formally declare war, which this Congress failed to do, or to formally end the war, which this bill DOES NOT do.

    This bill is part of a political shame in which the Democrats are buying time for the next election, after which they, if they will, will continue business as usual: war and welfare! This bill is worthy of either a “NO” vote or no vote!

  12. tsoldrin said

    This guy has some good insight on this bill and Ron Paul’s not voting… http://www.unanimocracy.com/2007/07/13/ron-paul-and-hr-2956-responsible-redeployment-from-iraq-act/

  13. Mike said

    Yeah, you’re way overreacting. His views are well known, he’s voted his conscience and ideals 100% of the the time. Missing a vote called at anytime while on the campaign trail is hardly anything new, or anything that can be avoided. In fact I’ve seen articles/comments about him making a considered effort to stay in Washington D.C. to do his current job as best he can. I’m guessing his record would compare favorably to the other candidates running.

    As to a private jet; unlike some candidates who will raise 100 million dollars for the primary alone, Ron Paul doesn’t exactly have the finances to drop a million dollars on private jets like a few other candidates already have or will shortly. He’s also very fiscally conservative with the money he is entrusted with. He practices what he preaches. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but a private jet flight runs from $10,000 to $30,000 depending on jet, layover time, and distance. Hardly chump change to drop to fly back to Washington for a single vote. I think that $20,000 to $60,000 round trip airfare could be better spent, don’t you?

  14. dl said

    right now i think that the google visit is more important for mr. paul to attend that this nowhere vote.if we want him to be the next president then he is going to have to get all the support he can.everyone knows where he stands on issues, so it isn’t necessary for him to be at every vote, especially since his one vote on this won’t make a difference.if you believe what he stands for is important then don’t sweat the small stuff.

  15. A nowhere bill is absolutely correct.

    Democrats got in last election and consequently FUNDED the surge. Good Lord! Nancy Pelosi even tabled the Bush impeachment initiative (but it’s still ALIVE!) I don’t trust ANY of them!

    I want us OUT of Iraq. I want our Country to stop doing the bidding of Big Business married to Big Government.

    Stop being a good Democrat. Stop being a good Republican. Start being a good American.

    I’m voting to get out of Iraq and Israel and the whole damn Middle East.

    I’m voting to get out of Korea.

    I’m voting to get out of NATO.

    I’m voting to bring ALL our troops home and protect our own borders and stop the stampede. Our country is going BROKE and we can’t afford this.

    I’m voting for Ron Paul whose been against this thing from the very start, and against alot of other things as well. The media (corporate) will try and paint him as a racist or whatever but just do your OWN homework.

    Nobody explains Ron Paul better than Ron himself. Do your own homework. You can listen here (thank God they can’t control the internet…YET!)

    http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

  16. NH said

    Yep this was brought up with short notice. To attack Ron for missing a vote is so disingenuous when he has told me personally that he hates to miss votes while he is campaigning. How many votes has Hillary or Obama missed? Many more.

    Ron’s voting record is the LEAST likely of any issue to be making an issue of….there is not much you can say to fault him about it.

  17. Scott said

    I agree that the Google presentation will do more for getting US out of Iraq than one vote, when the voting pattern was already known. Even so, when I look at votes that day, it seems Paul voted for most of the day, presumably staying as long as he could. The bill seems to be flawed. It is weak, and it seems to micromanage the war, which is not the way to get out.

  18. Skip said

    Responsible Redeployment is a lot like kissing your sister. It’s a typical politician’s smoke and mirrors solution to the unjustified, unwinable and unfortunate mess of Iraq. “If they knew then what they know now…..” they would make the same lame, unconstitutional irresponsible decisions. It is all about the next election you know. Responsible redeployment is anything but responsible. The solution for a bunch of career political Houdini’s who never want to take a stand on any issue that could come back to haunt them.

    On the other hand, Ron Paul wants to start removing living soldiers this afternoon, before they need to be shipped home in a body bag.

    Remember our best and brightest minds of mush who assure us of impending total collapse and chaos for Iraq are the same Neocon knuckledraggers who promised us a cakewalk before the first shot was fired–including the liar and moron who holds the office of president.

  19. bohography said

    HANG ON-HANG ON! Please listen for a second… I am a disabled veteran from this war and please understand that by cutting off the funding DOES NOT help the troops at all! This will not safely get us home, this will not safely redeploy us, this would, with out a doubt, render us defenseless… If the funds were cut, we would run out of ammunition, food, potable water, armor and the needed vehicles. You can’t get the troops home fast enough were we wouldn’t feel the impact. Please do not say this is to help the troops, this is a direct slap in the face to us… Please do not say that you support the troops if you want to pull the rug out from under us… I’ve been there 3 times and I’m telling you first hand that this bill is solely for politicians to jump on the polls bandwagon… There are improvements that you will never hear about. We are gaining the upper hand, but you wouldn’t know because it’s not newsworthy and it goes against their agendas. This would not be a discussion if the polls were good. They are governing by the polls and not by what is best to protect us. Please understand that I am not talking for anyone but the troops… Please understand that if we leave now all helel will break loose, more people will die and then we will have to go back in and clean up the mess… I understand the frustration and how people’s patients have ran out, but we are the ones carrying the load and we remain patient? So if we the military are willing to continue, willing to be patient and willing to sacrifice our lives for this, then why do we allow politicians who have know experience in military operations get to determine whether we stay or surrender? Thank you for your time…

  20. Andrew said

    If you support this bill then why would you want Paul there? From reading it, I’m sure he would’ve voted against it. This bill actually extended funding for the war.

  21. Texas Little El said

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul398.html

    written and spoke by Ron Paul on the House floor

    Before the U.S. House of Representatives on July 12, 2007

    I rise in opposition to HR 2956 which, while a well-intended attempt to reduce our nation’s seemingly unlimited military commitment in Iraq, is in so many respects deeply flawed.

    I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002 and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial “Iraq regime change” legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I oppose this legislation is that it masquerades as a troop withdrawal measure but in reality may well end up increasing US commitments in the Middle East.

    Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the debate we should have had four years ago, before Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional obligation to declare war and transfer that authority to the president. Some in this body were rather glib in declaring the constitution antiquated while voting to cede the ability to initiate hostilities to the President. Now we see the result of ignoring the Constitution, and we are bringing even more mayhem to the process with this legislation.

    To those who believe this act would some how end the war, I simply point to the title for Section 3 of the bill, which states, “REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ AND TRANSITION TO A LIMITED PRESENCE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.” However the number of troops are limited, this legislation nevertheless will permit an ongoing American military presence in Iraq with our soldiers continuing to be engaged in hostilities.

    I also wish to draw attention to Section 4(b)(1), which mandates the President to submit a “Strategy for Iraq” by the beginning of next year. This “strategy” is to include:

    “A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section 3 of this Act.”

    In other words, far from extricating ourselves from the debacle in Iraq, this bill would set in motion a policy that could lead to a wider regional commitment, both financially and militarily. Such a policy would be disastrous for both our overextended national security forces and beleaguered taxpayers. This could, in fact, amount to an authorization for a region-wide “surge.”

    Congress’ job is to change the policy on Iraq, not to tell the military leaders how many troops they should have. I have attempted to do this with HR 2605, a bill to sunset after a six month period the authorization for military activity in Iraq. During this period a new plan for Iraq could be discussed and agreed. Plan first, authorization next, execution afterward. That is what we should be doing in Iraq.

    In summary, Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings us no closer to ending the war in Iraq. It brings us no closer to bringing our troops home. It says nothing about withdrawal, only about redeployment. It says nothing about reducing US presence in the Middle East, and may actually lead to an expanded US presence in the region. We have no guarantee the new strategy demanded by this legislation would not actually expand our military activities to Iran and Syria and beyond. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and put forth an effective strategy to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home.

  22. jeremiasx said

    Thanks for helping to mold and guide my thoughts on this event…I’m still proud to say Ron Paul is the best choice for President. After watching the Senate debate last night, I’m more convinced than ever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: