The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Mixed Feelings...

(See in situ)

Mixed Feelings...

For starters, it's "Libya." Some spell checking can add some gravitas to your argument.

More substantively, I don't really agree with you. Sure, Paul could have probed the constitutional authority issue. But your assertion that "fell in line" with the neocons and "seemed just fine" with the attack is fallacious. Do your research. Paul was vehemently against the president's usurpation of authority. He helped lead the charge on some votes that were very embarrassing to the administration.

That said, I view his approach to Clinton as strategic. He's trying to position himself as a harsh critic of Clinton in a "mainstream" way.

I also disagree with your framing of your "right" to criticize Paul because you contributed to him. We all have the right to criticize him. I do get what you're saying--as a "supporter" (financially) you have more skin in the game. You're not some Paul-basher. But we all have a right to criticize, whether we donate or not.

Still, I appreciate the way you presented your critique. Second-guessing strategy often gets a bad rap. And lots of idiots (let's face it, there are lots of them) have terrible ideas on how the movement should proceed. But you presented yours in a way that I like. I didn't agree with it, but agree that the constitutional critique is vital.