I NEVER PROMISED YOU A ROSE GARDEN
If someone promises you a rose garden, remember it is laced with thorns.
My assessment of Ron Paul:
According to the Constitution of the United States of America, Congress is responsible for instituting a Declaration of War.
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.
The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.
The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own objective; it was a view supported by the American electorate as a whole. Strategically, support from the legislators bolstered the president's case as he pressed the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq.
Now comes Ron Paul's role.
Ron Paul was responsible for legislation forcing the Congress to vote on a Declaration of War against Iraq.
In order to prevent Congress from yielding its constitutional authority to declare war to the executive branch, which does not constitutionally hold that power, Paul introduced legislation in October 2002 giving Congress the opportunity to declare war on Iraq, rather than merely "authorizing" the president to deploy forces without a declaration of war. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war. In a hearing on the resolution, Republican Rep. Henry Hyde said, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you donít have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isnít done anymore."
As one of six Republicans to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, Paul inspired the founding of a group called the National Peace Lobby Project to promote a resolution he and Oregon representative Peter DeFazio sponsored to repeal the war authorization in February 2003. His column "35 Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq" was translated and published in German, French, Russian, Italian, and Swiss publications before the Iraq War began.
Ron Paul created the war authorization resolution that allowed Congress to vote for a declaration of war against Iraq. He told his constituents to vote their conscious; although he did not vote for the war.
Why did he introduce the legislation?
So that the President could be held harmless and the blame would rest on Congress' shoulders and Paul would be held harmless because he did not vote for the declaration, but only introduced the legislation.
Did he introduce this legislation knowing full well Congress would vote for a declaration of war with the "false" intelligence they received?
Sleight of hand.
Later, in 2003, Paul promoted a resolution to repeal the war authorization.
Was it repealed?
First he institutes it and then he attempts to repeal it!
I guess the legislation served its' intended purpose.