http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul167.htmlBefore the US House of Representatives, March 17, 2004
Mr. Speaker, today, in the floor debate on H. Res. 557, the Iraq resolution, though a member of the Committee on International Relations, I was unfortunately denied time to express my dissent on the policy of preemptive war in Iraq. The fact that the Committee on International Relations held no hearings and did not mark up the resolution further challenges the fairness of the process.
Mr. Speaker, I now rise to express my opposition to H. Res. 557, obviously, not because our Armed Forces do not deserve praise, but rather because our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously flawed. An effort to commend our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a policy of folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though the resolution may have political benefits, it will prove to be historically incorrect.
Justifying preemption is not an answer to avoiding appeasement. Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good wars. And this one does not qualify. Most wars are costly beyond measure, in life and limb and economic hardship. In this regard, this war does qualify: 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a victory requiring self-deception.
Rather than bragging about victory, we should recognize that the war that rages on between the Muslim East and the Christian West has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe. Denying we have an interest in oil and that occupying an Islamic country is not an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims is foolhardy....more...
This guy should be running for prez as a dem. His VP should be
Sen. Byrd.