Libertarian Party to Sen Rand Paul: ‘Your bid for a declaration of war against ISIS is unjustifiable and dangerous’
Share This


What you would think would be cozy bedfellows doesn’t necessarily always materialize. On Monday, libertarian-leaning Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky released a draft Declaration of War resolution against Islamic State (also known as ISIS) that he intends on introducing when Congress comes back into session in December.
donkeyhotey donkeyhotey@wordpress.com

donkeyhotey donkeyhotey@wordpress.com

Sen. Paul plans to introduce a resolution to declare war against the Islamic State, terminate the authority under the 2002 Iraq AUMF, and set a date for expiration of the 2001 Afghanistan AUMF.

“When Congress comes back into session in December, I will introduce a resolution to declare war against ISIS. I believe the President must come to Congress to begin a war and that Congress has a duty to act. Right now, this war is illegal until Congress acts pursuant to the Constitution and authorizes it,” Sen. Paul said.

However, the political party that his father, former Rep Ron Paul, ran for President for in 1988 pulled no punches in their criticism of Paul’s proposed action.

In a letter from the chair of the National Libertarian Party, Nicholas J. Sarwark, the proposed resolution by Sen Paul was criticized severely.

“We agree with you that Congress should obey the Constitution. We should never engage in foreign wars without a congressional declaration of war, a restraint on military action put in place by our Founding Fathers to ensure lawmakers never send our troops to war without deliberation”, writes Sarwack.

However, the agreement ended there. Sarwack continues, “We agree with your father, Ron Paul, who for decades was a lonely yet brave voice in Congress for peace. He was right when he called for getting the U.S. military out of the Middle East.

Libertarian Party“Everyone knows that you’re posturing to get the Republican nomination for president in 2016. But for this long-shot hope of winning the nomination, you have endorsed a roster of hawkish Big Government Republicans — from Mitt Romney to Mitch McConnell. And now you’re calling for sending our troops back to Iraq, which will be a death sentence for many of them.

“Just how much can your long-shot presidential bid be worth? Is it worth the lives of these young men and women? The Libertarian Party says, “Absolutely not!”

The letter closes leaving nothing to interpretation–“Your bid for a declaration of war against ISIS is unjustifiable and dangerous. Please withdraw it immediately.”

The dangerous part is thinking the president has the authority to wage war without a declaration like Obama has done, and in doing so has killed more soldiers then Bush. I don't agree with sending any more soldiers to Iraq but if they wish to do it it should be done with a declaration of war through congress. Getting back to that point alone would be a huge success in my opinion.

Quoted from Henry

The dangerous part is thinking the president has the authority to wage war without a declaration like Obama has done, and in doing so has killed more soldiers then Bush. I don't agree with sending any more soldiers to Iraq but if they wish to do it it should be done with a declaration of war through congress. Getting back to that point alone would be a huge success in my opinion.

Yes, especially because Obama would have to make his case for the war, and every member of congress would have to cast a vote on a declaration of war.  Then you could really see how anxious people are to send American men and women to go and die.  

Quoted from Henry

The dangerous part is thinking the president has the authority to wage war without a declaration like Obama has done, and in doing so has killed more soldiers then Bush.

LOL!  Henry is inventing FACTS again!

Quoted from CICERO

Yes, especially because Obama would have to make his case for the war, and every member of congress would have to cast a vote on a declaration of war.  Then you could really see how anxious people are to send American men and women to go and die.  

Both sides are so nuts I'm sure war would be a breeze at this point but that could change, the only thing they vote on now is the funding for war which is a completely different animal in its own part.

Sorry box I meant Afghanistan, but as we see now that number could come a little closer in Iraq as well

Quoted from Henry

Sorry box I meant Afghanistan, but as we see now that number could come a little closer in Iraq as well

Just think if GWB had actually fought the war in Afghanistan instead of abandoning that war to start his
Failed Oil War in Iraq...
GWB may have finished that war, captured or killed Bin Laden and Obama wouldn't have to clean up
G Worst Bush's mess.  

Quoted from Box A Rox

LOL!  Henry is inventing FACTS again!

That's good, he killed less.  Quite the success!  

Only in America is comparing who killed LESS people in illegal wars of aggression considered a civil conversation.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Just think if GWB had actually fought the war in Afghanistan instead of abandoning that war to start his
Failed Oil War in Iraq...
GWB may have finished that war, captured or killed Bin Laden and Obama wouldn't have to clean up
G Worst Bush's mess.  

Still blaming Bush for this lmao. Obama in 2 terms couldn't end the wars and in reality increased death in the area, 7 countries box count them

Quoted from CICERO

That's good, he killed less.  Quite the success!  

Only in America is comparing who killed LESS people in illegal wars of aggression considered a civil conversation.

Remember box was in Nam', he only understands the numbers game as that was his role, just it was who scored higher was the winner back then.

Quoted from Henry

Still blaming Bush for this lmao. Obama in 2 terms couldn't end the wars and in reality increased death in the area, 7 countries box count them

Hey, at least he closed Gitmo...Chalk that up as an Obama success.

Obama can use prosecutorial discretion to allow illegals to stay in the US.  But he couldn't do anything to close GITMO?

Quoted from CICERO

That's good, he killed less.  Quite the success!  

Only in America is comparing who killed LESS people in illegal wars of aggression considered
a civil conversation.

Cissy... that was Henry's contention, not mine.  I merely corrected Henry's misconception.  

Quoted from Henry

The dangerous part is thinking the president has the authority to
wage war without a declaration like Obama has done, and in doing so has killed
more soldiers then Bush..

Quoted from Henry

Remember box was in Nam', he only understands the numbers game as that was his role,
just it was who scored higher was the winner back then.

Again Henry posts of things he has no knowledge about.
I wonder if Henry ever heard of a policy of  "hearts & minds"?  Probably not.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Cissy... that was Henry's contention, not mine.  I merely corrected Henry's misconception.  

I was responding to both of you...You were having a "who killed more people" debate.  Just thought it was funny.  How many countries can compare which of their government leaders killed more or less than their predecessor? And the U.S. list of leaders goes back for DECADES.