Republicans Can't Handle the Truth

I see that you cannot deny that the Congress never declared war on Iraq.

Also, a President Peroutka with the help of either only 34 senators or only 146 congressmen can veto any bill coming out of the Congress and have that veto sustained.

Perhaps there are still at least that many members of Congress who care about having limited, constitutional government. But maybe not.

 

Sheer speculation.

How could the GOP collapse in the re-election of Bush and yet win the Congress? It is an unlikely scenario. The collapse of the leader of the GOP would also mean the loss of numerous seats in Congress.

The CP should ignore the Libertarians like Ron Paul and Paul Sperry, the author of the article about the GOP can't handle the truth. The CP is actually weaker than the Libertarians as is shown by their constant use of Libertarians sources. Besides Libertarians like the Jewish Matt Drudge favor the war in Iraq, and no one says that Drudge is a liberal. And Ron Paul has little influence inside the GOP and that is why PBS is a good place for his ideas.

It is disingenuous of the CP constantly to attack the GOP and then say that the Republicans are going to win, and you know it.

 

We are attacking the Demopublicans as a whole, not just the Republican branch of that party.

 

I would love to see GOP stalwarts like Senator Alren Specter defeated.

 

If you don't like Ron Paul then you clearly don't like the Founding Fathers of these United States - men like Washington, Jefferson, et al.

 

And Mr. Drudge is also not exactly a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the Bush administration, either.

 

Why, after the tactics of Mr. Peroutka, would anyone help him?

And for the record, I have been trying to say that, yes, the war in Iraq is legal. They tried to say that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was not a declaration of war in Viet Nam, but that point was not recognized.

The cutoff of aid to Israel would lead to an Arab attack on Israel and probable nuclear war as Israel defended herself against Islamofascism.

 

Please be specific. What tactics of Mr. Peroutka are you referring to? I am not asking about supporters, but about Mr. Peroutka himself. Either support your statement or apologize for bearing false witness, CMG.

 

If Mr. Peroutka defeated the GOP, how would he have the nerve to ask the GOP to help him? He has said that the war in Iraq is illegal and that the President has acted illegally. And then the GOP is supposed to help him.

I guess not. Politics is the business of rewarding one's friends and punishing one's enemies.

http://www.top-greetings.com/cards/100/hillary.jpg

http://www.joesautobody.com/rodham.jpg

 

Maybe there are enough people in Congress who would take note of the wishes of the American people and in order to keep being re-elected would start supporting limited, constitutional government.

If Michael Anthony Peroutka wins on November 2, I would expect there to be a major shake-up in Congressional voting that day as well.

 

And I see, CMG, you haven't mentioned any tactics by Mr. Peroutka. Why don't you admit that you were bearing false witness?

 

I told you that the lawyer said that Mr. Bush has acted illegally in fighting the war in Iraq. What more do you want?

 

Unconstitutionally would be a better description than illegally.

I see, CMG. You believe that telling the truth is a tactic.

 

Ken, I hope that you are not copying the style of a certain Texas Libertarian. The man said that it was illegal. That is his word. And you should not beg the question. I don't accept that Mr. Peroutka has given a true description of the legal situation because there is no court and no majority in Congress that agrees with him. They tried to declare the Viet Nam war illegal on the basis that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was not a declaration of war--they failed.

This point of view then is reduced to a quibble.

 

The Iraq War is being unconstitutionally conducted. That the truth is not accepted does not negate the truth.

 

Here is part of Peroutka's words on the subject [I have omitted the quotation marks but they are all his words below.]:

This eventuality might have been avoided had the President and the Congress followed the United States Constitution which provides that only Congress can declare war. The President cannot usurp this power from Congress and the Congress cannot surrender it by resolution.

...That is, I fear, what we have in the case of Iraq. We should get the troops out now.

“Nation building” is not a permissible function of the United States Government under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

As President, I would follow the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution, and bring home our troops.

 

And here are the words of Mr. Peroutka on April 16 of this year:

"As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war."

Note the use of the term "illegal."

 

Thank you for those quotes, CMG. I wholeheartedly support them in full.

If an action is unconstitutionally, it is therefore illegal.

 

We went through this debate forty years ago to no avail. It is a dead issue. Here is a note from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, under the topic of the Vietnam War and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution:

"No such declaration being either asked of or granted by the Congress, President Johnson relied on his power as Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as justification for escalation of the conflict.
Proponents of the war argued that the conflict was something less than a formal war, that the U.S. was assisting a properly engaged ally in defending itself and that the lack of a declaration was a formality. Opponents said that, in addition to other arguments, the lack of declaration made Vietnam an illegal war. This issue reasonably should have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States but no case was ever taken up by the Court."