Paul, Sklar and House Resolution 861

Our Congressman, Ron Paul, figures prominently today in the Chicago Tribune blog known as The Swamp regarding the "controversial resolution that essentially ties the Iraq war to the global war on terror."

Paul, a nominal though officially affiliated Republican who's really a Libertarian, joined Democrats is criticizing the political intrigue associated with the resolution, which critics say is just a ploy to make to Democrats look like weak sisters when it comes to killing the bearded guys in turbans.

Paul, as most of you know, has been against the Iraq War from the beginning, and as we've stated here before, it sort of amazes us that a congressman representing this conservative, rather redneck congressional district could withstand re-election this fall given his unapologetic anti-war stance.

(That said, I have no idea what his Democratic opponent Shane Sklar's stance on the Iraq War is, so if someone knows, feel free to drop us a comment; yeah, I could try to look it up myself, but Letterman's on.)

In the Trib's blog, Paul, known affectionately around here at "The Grumpy Gynecologist," says of the House resolution:

“The first sentence of the H.Res. 861 says, "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the global war on terror" -- so this is all about terrorism, ignoring the fact that terrorism is a technique, has nothing to do with fighting a war in Iraq. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. So are we addressing that subject as well? That's a cop- out. That is not addressing the real problem.”

I wish Paul would have advised us what the "real problem" is, but the blog piece kinda leaves us hangin'.

Even so, it seems that Paul puts his young Democratic opponent in a rather awkward position.

Sklar's facing an anti-war Republican. How wack is that? Is there a playbook for this situation, young feller?

Paul's adamantly against the war. He's put his cards on the table.

So are you for it or agin' it, Mr. Sklar? If you're agin' it, does that mean you're soft on the bearded guys in turbans who want to kill us? If not, what does it mean?
=====================
addendum: Paul also figured in this Newsbusters blog piece and the Houston daily took notice in Friday's editions.