413-1, with America’s freest-thinkin’ patriot the lone dissenter. A Bircher, soft on the ChiComs? Doubtful. I’m sure this was another “principled” isolationist vote, in which the most toothless criticism of another sovereign nation is impermissible “meddling” even if it’s directed at a form of occupation much more egregious than the one Paul himself regularly rails about vis-a-vis Iraq. Commenter JohnTant raises a curious anomaly in the comments to the Headlines item about this, though: If it’s all about minding our own business or not deigning to vote on meaningless hortatory resolutions, why’d America’s Greatest Patriot cast a yes on an old measure regarding intercountry adoptions in Romania? Or on one condemning jihadist attacks in Egypt? I must have missed the part of the Constitution that makes that a necessary and proper power of Congress — but only with respect to countries other than Israel, because when it came time to condemn a terror attack there, the Paulnut politely declined. On principle, I’m sure.
I’ve been wondering ever since Adam Gadahn listed AQ’s grievances for us last year just how far this tool would go to address them if elected, since he’s all about the root causes. Iraq, occupation, imperialism: That’s the Ron Paul read on jihad, which conveniently dovetails with Paul’s own objections to U.S. foreign policy. Notably, though, it’s not the Adam Gadahn read: Not only did Gadahn go out of his way to emphasize that pulling out of Iraq “will get you nowhere,” but he specifically justified future attacks on the U.S. if, in the course of AQ establishing a caliphate, we dared breathe a word of criticism about them. Would Paul play ball on that one time? Based on this vote, maybe, yeah.
Update: Headlines comments imported.