Paul Ryan Flaunts His Foreign Policy Bona Fides: "I Voted To Send People To War"

In an interview with FOX, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan defended his lack of foreign policy experience by reminding us all that he voted to invade Iraq: 

Speaking to Fox News’ Carl Cameron Saturday morning, Republican VP nomineePaul Ryan made the case for why he believes his foreign policy credentials are stronger than President Obama’s, emphasizing that he has been a voting member of Congress longer than the president. Ryan cited his votes in favor of the Iraq War as evidence that he has had more foreign policy experience than Obama.

“I’ve been in Congress for a number of years,” he told Cameron. “That’s more experience thanBarack Obama had when he came into office.”

“I voted to send people to war,” he added.

As a congressman, Ryan voted for the 2002 Iraq Resolution which authorized President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq. He also voted in favor of the Iraq War troop “surge” in 2007.

More on that particular from Mediaite

Appendices courtesy of Michael Brendan Doherty and Jim Antle: "So did our Secretary of State." "So did our vice president." 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • wef||

    Who cares about war on little brown people?

    I bet far more voters would be upset if Ryan were found to have voted against online poker.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Voting in favor of a particularly dumbass war is "foreign policy experience"? That's stupid (except, I suppose, by Washington D.C. standards).

    And I'm supposed to believe that he's a libertarian?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The desperate attempt on Romney's part to insist that his campaign has foreign policy advantages is absolutely pathetic. The truth (which neither party can admit) is that there is significant continuity from the Bush to the Obama administration, and that Romney and Paul have no significant differences on foreign policy. Romney's pick of Ryan was a good call (given that he has nothing to run on vis a vis foreign policy), but it's just sad to see these continued efforts to differentiate himself from Obama on foreign policy.

  • Calidissident||

    "The truth (which neither party can admit) is that there is significant continuity from the Bush to the Obama administration, and that Romney and Paul have no significant differences on foreign policy."

    I take it you meant to say Obama instead of Paul? Cause if you're referring to Ron Paul that's patently false, and if you're referring to Paul Ryan it doesn't really make sense

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yes, my bad. Derp.

  • ||

    Ryan would make the worse president since Lincoln.

    or some other crazy shit.

    Note: I am not supporting Ryan who i plan on voting against this November. I am making fun of idiots who think Lincoln was bad.

  • ||

    I am making fun of idiots who think Lincoln was bad.

    Darth DiLorenzo finds your lack of faith disturbing.

  • wef||

    Shouldn't that be lack of lack of faith disturbing.

    DiLorenzo, after all, is speaking blasphemies.

  • Calidissident||

    You can think Lincoln did bad, unlibertarian things without being a slavery apologist. Though I would say there have been a good number of presidents worse than him since (ex. TR, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, Obama)

  • ||

    You can think Lincoln did bad, unlibertarian things without being a slavery apologist.

    how hard is to understand that the SOUTH ATTACKED FORT SUMTER!

    I don't know know if they are slavery apologists. I do know they are idiots and historical illiterates.

  • wef||

    What sophomoric, banal nonsense you are spouting.

    How old are you?

    Now go away, junior.

  • ||

    Old enough to know democrats lie.

    And old enough to know that you have fallen for one of their oldest.

    Northern aggression my asshole.

  • Sevo||

    wef| 8.18.12 @ 10:23PM |#
    "What sophomoric, banal nonsense you are spouting.
    How old are you?
    "Now go away, junior."

    Hey wef, aren't you the poster claiming that the Repub party should die? And using the CA Euro-cool choo-choo to make your point? Is that you? With the Lionel train set?
    And you claim someone else is 'junior'?

  • RBS||

    No reason they both can't be "junior."

  • Calidissident||

    Is it your belief that the Civil War would not have happened if not for Fort Sumter? Also, was Lincoln not insistent on using the fort to collect tariffs? Obviously, if the confederacy viewed themselves as an independent country, they're not going to tolerate another country taxing items entering their territory.

    Anyways, I had plenty of things in mind other than fighting the Civil War itself when I made that comment. And Lincoln had been a fan of centralized government long before he became president, so even if hadn't been a wartime president, I'd have plenty of reasons to criticize him

  • ||

    Is it your belief that the Civil War would not have happened if not for Fort Sumter?

    No.

    Lincoln only wanted to stop slavery from expanding west into the territories.

    Seriously this is why the south left the union...all because a guy got elected who would stop slavery in Oregon....and then the south attack a federal fort and only after that declares war on the north. Not only are they aggressors but they are dishonorable scum.

    You arguments fall flat and hinge on hypotheticals that did not happen and would not have happened.

    Either the president has the power to defend against enemies foreign and domestic or he doesn't. A hypothetical alternate history does not change the answer to that question.

  • ||

    Seriously? Your entire argument relies on disproportionate retribution. Fort Sumter wasn't a justification, nor was it used as the justification, to go to war with the South for years on end and make them part of the Union again.If it was just "they took Fort Sumter" the Union wouldn't have gone to the lengths it did.

    And again, you mean to tell me assaulting one fort, that was in their territory, was justification for a massive war? Idiot. If I throw a rock at you, do you think you have the right to drive your car over me? If I throw a rock at your house, do you think it's then ok to destroy my house? Fort Sumter was just an excuse to make sure the South was kept part of the Union. Even assuming a massive war WAS justified, forcing them to remain part of the Union WASN'T.

  • ||

    And again, you mean to tell me assaulting one fort, that was in their territory, was justification for a massive war?

    Alamo

    Pearl harbor

    9/11

    Yes when someone attacks you and declares war on you go to war....If you do not go to war to win then why the fuck even exist? I am pretty sure history is littered with the runes of whole civilizations who choose not to fight when they were attacked.

    I like how the presumption that the South would have stopped after Sumpter is a given....even though instead of suing for peace after they attacked the South instead declared war. The south wanted to keep the territories open to slavery. US territories. Oh well i guess Lincoln should just deed those right over to the guys who fucking killed your solders and issued a declaration of war against you.
    In what fucking unicorn prancing universe do you live in where a US President can just shrug off an attack on a US military instillation and a declaration of war?

  • ||

    Without commentary on your general argument, the Battle of the Alamo was not the beginning of the Texas Revolution.

  • Calidissident||

    "9/11"

    This is supposed to be an example of not overreacting?

  • Calidissident||

    Ok, at least you're consistent, unlike the people (mostly liberals) that blame the South for starting the war at Fort Sumter, and then simultaneously argue that Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves. We'll never know what would have happened, but I don't think it's absurd to argue that there was a strong likelihood of war even without Fort Sumter. And conducting a war that left 600,000 people dead because of Fort Sumter seems a bit of an overreaction. And you ignored my point about the tariff.

    Anyways, I object more to the actions Lincoln took during the war (suspending habeas corpus, the draft, etc) than the war itself. And I'm in no way defending the Confederates. I think they were assholes that seceded to maintain the institution of slavery. That doesn't mean Lincoln was the benevolent hero of liberty you learned about in third grade

  • ||

    then simultaneously argue that Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves

    Not simultaneously. Lincoln's views on the war and slavery evolved as the war progressed.

    He was not a perfect angel. But a guy who wanted to incrementally end slavery by first ending its expansion then went to war after he got attacked by a bunch of slavers who had declared war on him is pretty good guy in my book.

    His ultimate success at ending slavery and eventual understanding that he was fighting a moral war against slavery makes him a hero in my mind.

    He was also a terrible military commander in chief. Washington would have had far less casualties.

  • Calidissident||

    "Lincoln's views on the war and slavery evolved as the war progressed."

    No they didn't josh. There is no evidence to suggest that. History is complicated. Almost always, both sides are wrong. The fact that the Confederates were assholes doesn't make Lincoln a hero

  • An0nB0t||

    A hero who invaded a sovereign nation, illegally suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned thousands of political enemies, tacitly sanctioned the torture of dissidents, ordered the arrest of the chief justice of the Supreme Court for deigning to disagree with him, and commanded widespread pillaging, rape, and murder of civilians.

    Some fucking hero. Go back to the Daily Kos--you're an embarrassment to the cause of liberty.

  • ||

    Alamo

    Pearl harbor

    9/11


    If you think those things are similar to the attack on Fort Sumter, or to EACH OTHER for that matter, you're an idiot. Cal, there's no point in arguing with someone who makes such idiotic comparisons. He'll believe it no matter what, because he wants to.
  • ||

    Oops, that paragraph shouldn't be part of the quote.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Someone read a book recently!

  • Mensan||

    how hard is to understand that the SOUTH ATTACKED FORT SUMTER!

    Not hard at all. The military of the CSA, a sovereign nation, attacked an encampment of foreign troops within their own borders.

  • ||

    In a secession you send lawyers not soldiers.

    Of course the issue was not secession. The South wanted to make the territories slave country. They could not do that unless they won it by war.

    The weird fantasy you guys have about The South being some magical peaceful kingdom is mind-boggling.

    They fucking attacked then declared war. They knew what was going to happen after that.

    What the fuck is RC's Iron law? Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

    That is mother fucking right motherfuckers!

    The South wanted a war and that is why they attacked. All your bullshit is 150 year old propaganda no different then the crap democrats vomit out today. It is a pity you are fooled by such an obvious lie.

  • ||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....merica.svg

    Here is a nice map.

    Note the light green parts.

    What the fuck is that if not imperial aggression against the United states of America?!?!?!

  • Calidissident||

    No one is saying the South was some peaceful kingdom. But your example of Fort Sumter is flawed. Had the British, after the revolution, insisted on maintaining possession of all their forts and taxed goods entering America from foreign countries, would the Americans have tolerated that? Honestly, I think you'd have a better argument just sticking to the likelihood of conflict in the West, which was inevitable.

  • ||

    Of course the issue was not secession.

    Wow, you really ARE delusional. I thought you were just faking it before.

  • RBS||

    I always suspected JC was a moron. Now I know.

  • wareagle||

    Lincoln offered to leave slavery alone if the South would agree to remaining part of the Union. Painting him as the great emancipator is a bit disingenuous.

    There were also economics involved - the South provided the raw materials that factories in the North needed. No one was growing cotton in PA and NY; the climate did not allow it. The war happened, folks. Second-guessing it now is pointless.

  • Gladstone||

    The only reason Obama didn't vote for the war is because he wasn't a Senator at the time.

  • T o n y||

    I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

    That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    Barack Obama 2002

    I bet his opposition then was just part of a Machiavellian plot. Until someone proves otherwise, default to baseless self-serving speculation!

  • Calidissident||

    And then he continued the war, expanded another one, and started at least one more

  • T o n y||

    Which contradicts this explicitly nonpacifist excerpt how?

  • Calidissident||

    I would consider expanding the war in Afghanistan a decade after 9/11 to be "dumb." For one

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 8.18.12 @ 8:41PM |#
    "Which contradicts this explicitly nonpacifist excerpt how?"

    Yes, shithead, when you straddle that fence, why hardly anyone can figure out what you intend.
    So, shithead, doesn't that fence make your ass sore, shithead?

  • ||

    That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    What the fuck was Libya?

  • Gladstone||

    When Obama does something it's not dumb, obviously.

  • ||

    he's like a clean, articulate nixon

  • ||

    What the fuck was Libya?

    Or Pakistan.

    I wonder how many children he killed this week...all so he won't look weak in the coming election.

    You really can't get more political then that.

  • Joe R.||

    Fallacy of incomplete evidence

  • ||

    to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

    And so Obama kills children with drones so no one will pay attention to the worse 4 years since the great depression.

  • Broseph of Invention||

    to distract us from corporate scandals sandals and a stock sock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

    Do be fooled by the consonants, Josh. This is, was, and always has been about footwear.

  • Broseph of Invention||

    *And by "Do be fooled," I mean in the "Don't be fooled" sense.

  • ||

    Barack Obama 2002

    That was in October

    Here is Obama in late November of the same year.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

    This is 2 years before he became a US senator.
    Obama can pretty much claim any position you want in regards to the Iraq war cuz he took every position.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I voted to send people to war

    But did you unilaterally execute American citizens via drone without said citizens having the benefit of due process?

    I didn't fucking think so.

    Seriously though, bragging about sending soldiers to war as your foreign policy experience boggles the fucking mind. I'd argue that the soldiers who actually went to war have more than the guy who votem them to go.

    I fucking hate the Teams.

  • ||

    hey, he can look at his television and see iraq!

    that's more experience than sarah palin!

  • Hyperion||

    “I voted to send people to war,” he added

    Nice. Really great.

    We need a new admendment to the constitution that states in effect 'Any member of congress who votes to send people to war, gets their ass on the front lines and stays there until conclusion of war, or until they are dead'. That will solve our war problem instantly.

  • Calidissident||

    At least the rulers of old had the decency to fight the war themselves and risk their lives doing so, instead of calmly sending men off to die while they sit in their office chair (and then when the soldiers take out a national enemy, for example, they get to take credit as if they personally hunted him down and killed him)

  • Libertarian||

    “I voted to send people to war,” he added.

    A congressman who voted to send other people into battle. Now that's the kind of bold, outside-the-box thinking that we need in the Whitehouse.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    And at the time there were many men Ryan's age that were serving in combat.
    Chickenhawks are even worse than old men who are too old to fight voting to send your sons and daughters to war.

  • Daryl Davis||

    Ryan no doubt meant that he has himself weighed grave foreign policy decisions. But whatever his words, the message more likely conveyed was that his poor judgment about the wisdom of the Iraq war remains unmatured.

    That's disappointing. We had virtually no reason to make that huge sacrifice:

    http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/

  • Really?||

    Really? Ryan is touting his vote to send our young service members to die in Iraq, for what? I vote to send that douche to Iran in our next folly.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement