Ron Paul (R-Texas) Lambasts Bush on House Floor!

[Liberty Belle]

A Republican Congressman from Texas excoriated Bush for leading us into war based on lies, accuses Bush of rigging the Iraqi elections, and warns of totalitarianism in America.

How long until the rest of the Republicans in Congress wake up?



Who’s Better Off?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Before the US House of Representatives, April 6, 2005.

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?” The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.” It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed – not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election – supposedly the real one – is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister – something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree – the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.

But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will – a de facto draft – are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I’d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft – which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers – not the warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world – and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches – not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There’s no need for that. It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

[solinvictus]

1. Wow!

Could this be the opening of a schism among the Republican Party?

[w13rd0]

36. No, Ron Paul...

...has been railing against Bush for quite some time. No schism, he stands pretty much on his own. He's a Libertarian, but runs as a Republican.

[radfringe]

55. Ron Paul aside

there are others who are making similar noises...

US lawmakers regret voting for Iraq war
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13180
Some Republican lawmakers in Congress concerned about hidden cost of Iraq war despite good news.
By Charles Hoskinson - WASHINGTON

US Representative Walter Jones, a conservative Republican, does not hide his anger when he says bad information led him to vote for the Iraq war.

"If I had known then what I know today, I wouldn't have voted for that resolution. Absolutely not," he said Thursday in an interview.

His comments reflect concerns of other Republican lawmakers in Congress, and polls show a lingering debate over the reasons for going to war have hurt the administration even as the Iraq operation shows signs of success.

----------

sounding like some repugs are changing their tune -- a few possibilities as to why:

1. They realized they were duped, misled and lied to and have now come to their senses

2. public polls show their stance on Iraq is putting their re-selection in jeopardy

3. there's a kook-aid shortage and they haven't had any in a few days

----------

this brings up some questions/speculations:

a) will there be further investigations into WMD claims/manipulations?

b) will this lead to other investigations into things like Halliburton no-bid war-profiteering scams?

c) will investigations go further than just having a report swept under the rug?

d) dare I hope -- impeachment?

[eddieb]

69. Impeach

If all goes well right after the 06 elections and the Dems are in charge.

[tavalon]

76. Oh yes,

if by some miracle (and that miracle goes by the name of Diebold going away) we get Congress back, that will be first on the agenda.

[AmBlue]

89. "Diebold going away..."

HAH! You got that RIGHT!!

[susu369]

72. Walter Jones is a nutcake

from another thread in Editorials about article in Rolling Stone:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x118212

The most vivid proof of the Christianizing of Capitol Hill comes at the final session of Reclaiming America. Rep. Walter Jones, a lanky congressman from North Carolina, gives a fire-and-brimstone speech that would have gotten him laughed out of Washington thirty years ago. In today's climate, however, he's got a chance of passing his pet project, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which would permit ministers to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, effectively converting their tax-exempt churches into Republican campaign headquarters.

"America is under assault!" Jones thunders as his aides dash around the sanctuary snapping PR photos. "Everyone in America has the right to speak freely, except for those standing in the pulpits of our churches!" The amen chorus reaches a fever pitch. Hands fly heavenward."

[jwirr]

99. Does that mean that the Hatch Act

which muzzles public employees will also be overthrown?

[Liberty Belle]

108. Strike while the iron's hot. Call/write Reps to urge impeachment!

While they are feeling betrayed/unpopular because of Bush's lies and blunders, plant the seeds. Impeachment is the only way to restore honor to the Republican Party (though they'd have to impeach the VP and most of Congress to really clean house, IMHO).

Miriam

[AuntiBush]

135. Oh, Could it be.... dare say "true?"

I can dream... I-M-P-E-A-C-H! Yes... to Aretha's song. In chains, led down the steps...

Wake me when and if it happens. It sounds too good to be true.

I want my country back. :( Miss America, the one-time beautiful.

[bonzotex]

70. Ron Paul is an anomaly

Ron Paul and other Libertarians do speak for a substantial number of people. Most are working class non-voters that grab onto the Libertarian ideas because they feel so alienated by the Repugs, and The Democratic Party. We don’t have to sell out our ideals to make an appeal to these voters. We do need a consistent populist message, deemphasize gun control (sorry but that’s true), and protect individual liberties. These potential Dem voters shouldn't be ignored.

Ron Paul has an “R” by his name because that’s what it takes to get elected in his district. Democrats could learn from Ron Paul. He is consistent in his message and beliefs; he doesn’t “go along to get along”. He fights and generally speaks the truth as far as pointing out the hypocrisy of Power. Working folks love that. On the other hand, Ron Paul is just one square dance away from the radical Christian Libertarian Patriot movement and he would be railing just as hard against any Democrats if we were in power. Still, it’s nice to see him scream and I wish more Democrats would be as pissed off.

[Just Me]

101. Bullshit!!! He's a human being, an American with integrity,...

,...a person who holds true to principle and clings to his compassion for others.

He is NOT an "anomaly". He is an example. He is NOT radical. He is quite centered.

He's NOT a HO,...he's "for real".

[bonzotex]

162. He is an anomaly within the Republican Party

you wrote, "He's a human being, an American with integrity,..."
,...a person who holds true to principle and clings to his compassion for others"

Not exactly the standard profile of a Republican lawmaker, thus an anomaly. We shouldn't get too fired up considering Ron Paul a harbinger of a schism in Repug solidarity. He's an outsider and effectively powerless withing his declared Party. He could probably win in his district now as a Libertarian...unless the Texas Democratic Party fielded a viable candidate. And there's the real problem. People are starved for real ideas and real leadership. Either the Democrats can provide it or other parties will step in. Or, you end up with guys like Congressman Paul, nominally a Republican but with very different ultimate agenda. I like the guy, but I don't want to live in his version of America any more than Bushco's.

Still, he's been dead right about Iraq since the War drums started beating and he is consistent in pointing out the absurdities of power in Washington. In that, more Democratic "leaders" would do well to follow his example instead of sucking up to the Right. Why are we standing up cheering at his floor comments? Why wasn't this speech, and a 100 more like it made by Democrats? Until we have leaders that will show a similar grasp of truth and are willing to stand firm on principle, we will continue to stand in the cheap seats and watch our country be looted and destroyed from within.

[TerdlowSmedley]

179. But brave, very brave.

Why, I'm surprised he's been allowed to live. I think at the very least we can expect to see a wee character assassination. Hope his closet's clean.

[LuckyTheDog]

104. How soon till the smear campaign begins?

Or has it started already?

[Liberty Belle]

109. He's listed as a Republican at the Congressional website,

www.congress.gov.

He may be Libertarian in his views, but his party registration is Republican.

[Callboy]

180. nice but what does it

matter? Hes in and your out

[paineinthearse]

94. This is not surprising, Paul is a libertarian.

Read his congressional record, he is more anti-imperalistic. I'll take his foreign policy ideas any day over the corporatist dems like Lieberman, Clinton, Feinstein and Biden.

[Old and In the Way]

124. Maybe true....but he is still a Republican.

I have 2 nice Republican moderate Senators in my State. But they still enable the Republican majority. I'll gladly take Lieberman, Biden, et al....if we had Democratic control of Congress.

If Paul really wants to make a statement, join the Democrats....or, if ghe can't do that, become an Independent.

[spindoctor]

153. My word exactly

I don't know about a schism. I'm just glad to see that there is somebody left in the Republican party with the balls to stand up for decency (as opposed to phony morality).

Hats off!

[lovuian]

2. The republicans sees those polls and are bailing ship!!!

They have to get elected!!!

[FreedomAngel82]

5. You're right

One thing I have learned about the republicans is they're out for themselves instead of each other. Each man for himself. So this is VERY nice to see since it can help our side some and maybe he can convert some others. I'm also seeing this whole mentality with recent Tom DeLay events and how even Bill Frist isn't talking to him anymore.

[eridani]

31. Not true for Ron Paul

He has been against the war from the very beginning. He is also, along with Dennis Kucinich, the author of the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act.

[cthrumatrix]

61. he's a straight shooter ....this is why he is NEVER on TV

media avoids the truth

[paineinthearse]

95. Wrong. Whenever he gives a floor speech, he is on CSPAN

Another myth debunked.

[tuckessee]

161. You debunked nothing.

Just answer these two questions:

How many times has Ron Paul been interviewed on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS or any of the major national radio talk shows?

When was the last time you saw a Ron Paul piece in the Op-Ed page?

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. Wrong.

[man4allcats]

83. I have to agree...

I have not followed Ron Paul's congressional career so I will take it as fact that he personally has been consistent in his opposition to the war and his support of progressive policies. Still, it seems to me that everything he speaks of in this speech should have been foreseeable at least in general terms if not the minute detail offered by hindsight. With the exception of Dubya, I cannot believe that most Republicans and those Democrats who voted for the war are so stupid as to have been unable to see with reasonable clarity where, before its inception, this war would eventually lead. In short, though I will allow that Congressman Paul may well be and perhaps has always been honorable, I nevertheless do not believe that most of the folks who are now speaking in this manner have suddenly awakened to the hard light of truth and are now crying out in shocked surprise, "My God! Look what has happened! We must stop this!" Oh please. Spare me. Most if not all of the Congressmen who supported this war did so out of political expediency, and many of those who now cry foul do so for the same reason.

[Liberty Belle]

110. Tell them to impeach Bush! Restore honor to the GOP...

It's time to clean house and get rid of the dirt.

[ChoralScholar]

3. I would love to see the Republican party split right in half

That would be great....

[ClintonTyree]

91. I'd just love to see....

our country regain it's soul again. If the people of this country TRULY want Republicans running it, fine. But not THESE Republicans. These guys are a splinter group that have world domination in mind.

I just want to see sanity returned to our country. We were once the beacon of freedom and the model other countries aspired to be. Now we're hated and scorned.

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!

[AuntiBush]

137. I am with you whole-heartedly!

Couldn't say it any better.

I TOO WANT MY COUNTRY BACK! These Republicans are NUTZO'S. They've DISGRACED our NATION!

[achtung_circus]

4. kick for later nt

[LeahD]

6. Some Repubs. are finally growing spines! n/t

[Midnight Rambler]

7. Ron Paul is more of a libertarian type, isn't he?

I wasn't sure. Thought I remember a lecture on campus sponsered by the college libertarians, think it was him.

[Jade Fox]

13. Yes, he is a Libertarian.....

and thus has always been a bit at odds with the Republican Party.

As far as I know he has never been a fan of Bush's, so this is not an
unusual stand for him to take.

[Voltaire99]

27. Better than 9 out of 10 sitting Democrats, in any case

Look up his columns on Antiwar.com--cogent, passionate arguments against war and the rising security state.

[lastliberalintexas]

84. On this ONE issue, yes

But he's also very anti-choice and abhors any kind of social safety net. He's economically very far right, and he (and the repub party of Texas) has called for a return to the *gold standard*. He's fairly isolationist, which is the only reason he's against the Iraq invasion- he would have been with the America First crowd in the 1930s. And I doubt that he's very good on GLBT issues, though I've never seen a breakdown of his votes on those issues.

Ron Paul is good on some issues. But please don't think he's even as good as Lincoln Chafee- who isn't as good as he's portrayed, either, but that's another thread! :)

[MnFats]

8. I am astonished!

pleasantly so. are you sure this is for real?
it's hard to believe. but oh so very welcome...

[Domitan]

56. Very real

Ron Paul has been railing out against this for years!

[Liberty Belle]

111. Link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul241.html

[RobertSeattle]

9. Got link?

I went to his .gov website and this hasn't been posted yet.

[Erika]

10. I'm sure glad I voted Kerry/Edwards

and my yard sign is still out. Bush is a disgrace and he's sold out the American working class and our kids in the military.

[WatchWhatISay]

11. Ron Paul has always been a "one of a kind" Republican here in Texas

The rest of them think he's a harmless nutcase.

Sorry, but he won't be leading any Rebulican revolution back to sanity any time soon.

[dflprincess]

12. That makes at least 2

See this thread about Walter Jones, another Repuke representative who is demanding Bush apologize. Just a bunch of rats leaving a sinking ship. Too little too late.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1380979

These guys must be getting worried about their reelections. I hope their constituents don't forget how they voted and how long it took them to admit they were wrong.

[Liberty Belle]

112. The icefloe is breaking up...Reps who don't hop off will drown.

[Rosco T.]

14. WHAM! I love this line...

"It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes."

Congress and the people huh?? Impeachment, party of two???

[Liberty Belle]

113. Let's all ask Ron Paul to file articles of impeachment.

[babsbunny]

157. I'm doing that

very thing right now! And a big thank you!

[Rosco T.]

15. Linky if anyone want's it...

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr040605.htm

[lebkuchen]

20. I do want it

Thanks.

[Al-CIAda]

16. This is classic Ron Paul. He's a great congressman.

Wonderful man of integrity and principle. He used to be a Libertarian. He's been ripping the Bush cabal a new one since the Patriot Act. He NEVER DID drink the Kool-Aid.

Police State USA 
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst080904.htm

btw- I believe he wants to know the truth of 9/11.

[lastliberalintexas]

85. On some issues maybe

Please see my post upthread. He's still a far right wing case, regardless of how good he may be on a couple of issues.

[FreedomAngel82]

125. Sounds good

Sounds good. I'm glad someone wants to reopen 9/11 there. What if a bunch of people Email, fax, and phone and maybe he can get some other people to start up impeachment for the whole administration? They're all guilty....

[oblivious]

17. That man always seems to speak the truth.

June 3, 2004 : The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
What a mess! But no one should be surprised. Regime change plans- whether by CIA operations or by preemptive war- almost always go badly. American involvement in installing the Shah of Iran in the fifties, killing Diem in South Vietnam in the sixties, helping Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the eighties, assisting Saddam Hussein against Iran in the eighties, propping up dictators in many Arab countries, and supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people all have had serious repercussions on American interests including the loss of American life. We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars while the old wounds in the Middle East continue to fester.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr060304.htm

May 6, 2004 : Don't Start a War with Iran!
It is somewhat ironic that we are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the US government's ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country's internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to always be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?

I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr050604b.htm

March 17, 2004: Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War
This resolution dramatizes how we have forgotten that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein, confirming the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades. From the days of installing the Shah of Iran to the current worldwide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary involvement shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation.

Someday our leaders ought to ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and many others are not potential targets of an Islamic attack. Falsely believing that al Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein has resulted in al Qaeda now having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely believing that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism spreads around the world. Al Qaeda recruitment, sadly, has been dramatically increased.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr031704.htm

February 4, 2004: Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
Regardless of the results, the process of the inquiry is missing the most important point-- the failure of Congress to meet its responsibility on the decision to go, or not go, to war. The current mess was predictable from the beginning. Unfortunately, Congress voluntarily gave up its prerogative over war and illegally transferred this power to the president in October of 2002. The debate we are having now should have occurred here in the halls of Congress then. We should have debated a declaration of war resolution. Instead, Congress chose to transfer this decision-making power to the president to avoid the responsibility of making the hard choice of sending our young people into harms way, against a weak, third world country. This the president did on his own, with congressional acquiescence.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr020404.htm

All speeches
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/welcome.htm

[Terran1212]

18. Brave Republican who speaks the truth

I agree with almost everything he says...

[paineinthearse]

96. Libertarian. nt

[tinrobot]

19. Rats flee sinking ship....

News at 11.

[Domitan]

57. No rat there

He's never been on Bush's ship.

[Syrinx]

21. Former Libertarian Presidential Candidate

While he makes a lot of sense on a lot of issues, including much of our foreign policy, and on the drug war, he also is the antithesis of liberalism. He would demolish every social program that has ever been devised in our country, including Social Security.

Perhaps that's a fair trade-off. That I'm even considering that as a possiblity is showing how far these false prophets have progressed in their quest for an evil totalitarian government.

That's for each of us to determine. But he is no saviour, and you shouldn't be fooled.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. Exactly

I respect Ron Paul's independence from the Republican party and his consistency on issues, but I disagree with 95% of what he says. He's right about this, but he's NOT a liberal icon.

[Syrinx]

29. thank you

I was worried that I had turned on the wrong channel. :)

[Old and In the Way]

126. And he's still a Republican.

A rather obvious point, I know, but seems to me his opinion might be better served on this side of the aisle. His affiliation still enables this Republican majority.

[Hippo_Tron]

171. His affiliation doesn't even matter, the GOP has a majority regardless

If he were in the Senate where every vote matters then it would be different. But the GOP has a majority with or without him. His position is more valuable on the other side of the aisle.

[Old and In the Way]

173. It starts with one.

I can do the math, too. I know that his one vote won't make a difference. But I'd like to think that if 1 or 2 see the light and make the move, maybe others will follow.

[Hippo_Tron]

178. Doubt it

Zell Miller didn't really change anybody's mind, other than his narrow minded constituents who were already voting for Bush anyway. Jim Jeffords didn't really change anybody's mind either. If Ron Paul becomes a Democrat or becomes independent and caucuses with the Democrats then nobody will even raise an eyebrow when he makes these sort of speeches because he is a member of the opposition party. The fact that he is a Republican makes this much more noticeable.

[eridani]

32. That should not stop us from working with him where we do agree

Vicious culture warriors Bob Barr and Dick Armey are seriously pissed off by the PATRIOT Act.

And note that he did something as a Republican which he could never have done as a Libertarian--cast a vote against the war.

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. I agree we should work with them when we are able

But we should also avoid hailing them as heroes or mistakenly attributing some liberal sensibilities to these people, where there are none. Ron Paul is a very staunch conservative who would as soon dismantle all federal programs as well as withdraw the U.S. from ALL international involvment - not just the war in Iraq, but also the UN, NATO, and any treaties. He's a hardcore, old-school, isolationist small-government conservative, which is why he rightly hates Bushco. But he's the opposite of what we stand for, as well.

Work with him when we can, but always be aware of who he is and exactly what he stands for. He doesn't like us a whole lot better than he likes them.

[Cats Against Frist]

77. He might be only one-half opposite

I don't know two much about Ron Paul, but from Rothbard, on up, "there are two kinds" of conservative libertarians: the first, are ones who don't really like secularism, counterculturalism, bohemianism, libertinism, libertarian socialism, consentual crime, etc. -- but they realize that their rhetoric would be total bullshit if they pieced together a plan to be "stateless fascists." These are people who just want to de-centralize, have open boarders, hope that people take some responsibility, etc.

Then, there's the other type -- the "ancient ways" christo-freako libertarians who want to shun everyone who isn't swept up in the Mammon Jesus Myth of White America, and are paranoid and xenophobic, and want to beat their kids and spew KKK rhetoric. These are the "stateless fascists," who claim that libertarianism would never work, unless everyone was a carbon-copy of Pat Buchanan.

I don't know which kind Paul is. And, also, within both kinds, there is a subset of weird, anarchocapitalist market worshippers. I don't know how into that he is, either.

If he's moderate and stands for civil liberties -- no matter how deplorable to christo-fascism -- and the LP is pretty moderate, actually -- then he's only half-opposite. :)

[lastliberalintexas]

86. He's a christo-fascist libertarian republican

who has KKKish tendencies, worships at the altar of Adam Smith, argues for a return to the gold standard, and basically agrees with Norquist on most fiscal issues. Just so you know. :)

[Liberty Belle]

114. This is a big-tent impeachment process. ;-)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, on this front.
We don't need to support Republicans on other issues to agree with them that Bush must go.

[WildEyedLiberal]

175. I am not sure, so don't take my word for this

But I seem to recall that Paul is a very religious man - it seems like I recall his name being associated with the Christian right damners of Clinton's morality several years ago, and I seem to remember associating him with the sort of Tim McVeigh-esque/identity Christianty/militia type of mindset, the kind of guy who was PISSED OFF about Waco and hated the federal government, etc.

Of course that could all be my faulty memory, and I wouldn't advise anyone to take that at face value without confirming it first, but I seem to remember disliking Paul intensely from the Clinton years for those reasons. I'm just too lazy to look him up now to confirm it, but those are my recollections.

'Course I was only 12 during the Monicagate scandal. :)

[sellitman]

158. The same should be said about McCain

Some on the left mistake his demeanor for stances. He is a right winger deep down and just likes to call it like he sees it at other times. He is no liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Worse yet he has turned into a bushco brown noser of late. These Pukes aren't our friends, even during lucid moments of standing up for principle over party.





*spelling error

[WildEyedLiberal]

176. Yes yes and yes

Despite his occasional nonoffensive stands, McCain is a Puke whore through and through, and after his whoring on the 2004 election trail, I lost every iota of respect I once had for the man.

I once heard a *very* far-leftist friend (the kind of guy who made ME feel conservative) say that the only politician he respected was McCain. I should add that my far-leftist friend is a naive political neophyte. :eyes: But yeah, McCain is a whore, and he'll never get defended by me. I'll work with him if he wants to do something useful, but I'll never forget that he's just a Puke like the rest of 'em.

[Blue Belle]

183. McCain is a sell out.

I used to be one of the Liberals that would have voted for him, but now I can't even stand to watch him. He had the opportunity to knock Bush out of the water during the elections last year - all he had to do was remain silent, but instead, he went on the campaign trail. Now he's out stumping for Bush's Social Security plan and anything else Bush wants him to talk up. He was interviewed on George Steppanopolis yesterday and all he did was roll over and praise Bush for everything... what a whore. If he thinks that kissing up to Bush will make him the the heir apparent as the GOP presidential nominee he has another think coming... there's a reason why they sent Jeb to view the Tsunami damage and made his pet cause (Terry Schaivo) an act of congress...

[FreedomAngel82]

127. Any republican who

is pissed off about the Patriot Act, Iraq, and Social Security does help us. I wish he'd speak out a little more about SS though and PA. Did he vote against PA the first time? Just me wondering.

[bvar22]

22. This guy sings our song!!!

Kick for the late nighters,
and a recommendation for greatest!

[ariellyn]

40. He sings America's song...as long as we are divided by RW

propoganda Bushco can succeed amid the chaos. But when people--regardless of their political party--agree on the simple, undeniable facts, we will unite. This is a great start.

[ginnyinWI]

23. Pay attention to this--they are self-destructing

I've said it before: the signs are there for all to see. Take heart, Dems--it won't be too much longer now. Things will look really good by 2006. :thumbsup:

[Nothing Without Hope]

24. Ron Paul and Bill Ratliff are both, unlike DeLay and Bush, HONEST Texas

politicians, and both of them are Republicans. There's a lesson in that - we should take care not to issue a blanket demonizaton of all Republicans, even all Republican politicians from Texas.

There are people of integrity and courage out there still, and we need to reach out to them.

(Read about Bill Ratliff's career here, where he is being awarded a Profiles In Courage Award:)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1372025

[FreedomAngel82]

128. I agree

Only people like Tom DeLay are neocons in republican clothing. My mayor is a republican running for the Senate and he's a pretty good person and mayor in general and he's friends with our democratic governor Mr. Bredesen and even called Bill Frist a cat killer. Heh heh. He's going to be leaving office later this month (we vote for the actual mayor Tuesday) and his last thing he's doing is rebuilding old home's in the innercity. To lump them all together with the neocons isn't quite too fair. I just wish the real republicans would get some spine and kick out these freaks who are neocons in republican clothing and destroying our country.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shraby]

28. Why isn't he filing impeachment charges if

he's so upset. I would think it would be high on his "things to do" list.

[Liberty Belle]

115. Write and ask him. We all should, especially y'all in Texas.

[caledesi]

38. Uh, yes. nt

[0rganism]

52. Current Events: the GOP is already dismantling the federal government

At this point in the game, the difference is that Ron Paul's methods would have been cheaper, quicker, and let us get on with re-investing in our state and local governments. However, the people have spoken, and opted to give Bush's thugs first dibs on looting the treasury before the fed scales back to funding only military spending and debt service.

[Swamp Rat]

30. Kick ass Ron Paul!

I hope he leaves the party and makes a big stink when he does it.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

34. The GOP are a bunch of cannibal reptiles who will eat each other

right in front of your beady eyes. :D

Welcome to DU. Good luck!

[Vektor]

37. Did he mention Bush rigging any *other* elections?

:-)

Just wonderin'.

[Liberty Belle]

116. No, but I'll bet he's got a clue.

Wouldn't hurt to send him stacks of documentation, though--
to further any impeachment argument he might choose to make down the road. :evilgrin:

[Vektor]

123. Excellent thinking!

I'll bet a lot of them know.

[FreedomAngel82]

129. That would be good

Maybe he would join Mr. Conyers with it. :shrug:

[ariellyn]

39. A man after my own heart ....n/t

:loveya::loveya:

[Algomas]

41. How fitting...

The evil wind that blew out of Texas being handled by a citizen of Texas. He is hurling the toxic kool-aid in their faces. Good for him, a purge like that is a liberating step toward sobriety.
This is a tremendous, stupendous, momentous cry of revolution from amidst their own ranks!
I suggest we forward this powerful speech to all the republicans we know.

[rodeodance]

42. Yes, I do recall him ranting on this a while ago.

[Hekate]

43. I'm sending it to a Repub friend ...

...who's rapidly becoming a non-friend because of the spam she sends me (and her whole list, which she doesn't bother to suppress as a bcc) --It's that ungodly crap about how America is a Christian nation, always was, always will be, you can see that everywhere you look, it's just so and God has plans for the US and those plans are working all the time, and anyone who disagrees should just sit down and shut up because if they're not both Christian and American they should just keep their opinions to themselves. One night over Trivial Pursuit this same lady opined that Bush should invade the whole Middle East and "just clean 'em all out." She looked downright bloodthirsty when she said it too.

Anyhow, I don't care if this guy is really a Libertarian or not -- he's registered as Republican and he's in DC as a Repub and I can hardly wait to rub someone's nose in this speech.

I take this speech and Bush's polls as a sign that it might be safe at last for me to start :popcorn:

Hekate

[coda]

45. Hekate, if you're going to send something...

..I hope you'll consider sending John Danforth's column too.

I like Ron Paul's columns, but he's definitely been marginalized by the current regime.

Danforth was always a mainstream Republican, and it won't be easy to write him off.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?incamp=article_popular_1

John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in January as United States ambassador to the United Nations. He is an Episcopal minister.



OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
In the Name of Politics
By JOHN C. DANFORTH

Published: March 30, 2005

St. Louis — BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.

Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.

Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.

High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.

[Hekate]

47. Thanks for the suggestion

I looked and found I already have the complete text and link for Danforth's Op-Ed piece -- maybe that will be better.

Hekate

[Liberty Belle]

117. She didn't bcc? Then send Ron Paul's speech to her WHOLE list!

Perhaps at least a few of the sheep will wake up and realize there's a wolf heading up the herd.

[FreedomAngel82]

130. I'd rub it in too

Any republican who says all this. Of course knowing these people they'll keep their heads in their asses. It's so amazing to me how the people who claim to love God and Christ turn around and say to murder people because they aren't Christians and are obviously not following Christ or God. I guess they skipped Jesus' whole "turn the other cheek," "love they neighbor" lessons and also when Peter cut off a guy's ear when they came to arrest Jesus and take him to court to Crucify him Jesus healed the guards ear and told him not to fight and he went. I guess Jesus was too much of a "hippy liberal" for them eh? :eyes:

[bling bling]

44. Music to my ears.

The more Repubs speak out against this evil administration the more it will hopefully embolden the rest of the Repubs to speak out as well.

And maybe, just maybe, the Democrats will follow suit and start to speak out against the aministration too. But that's a long shot.

[Swamp Rat]

46. kick

[Disturbed]

48. Most Libertarians were against the invasion of Iraq.

They are also opposed to many policies of the Bush Junta. That does not make them liberal allies in the basic sense of their agenda. The Bush Junta is not a Conservative group. Many Conservatives are not pleased with the Bush Junta either. The NeoCons are driving the Bush Junta agenda.Do some research about NeoCon philosophy. The Fundie element of the Bush Junta are not NeoCons as I have read on boards. The Bush Junta is not the Republican Party either. The Republican Party has been taken over by the NeoCons and Fundie elements. Moderate Republicans have been pushed aside.

Iraq will be occupied by the U.S. for many years. Both parties will fund that stay.

[Swamp Rat]

50. Dude, I can tell you where Leo Strauss wiped his ass!

:D

[FreedomAngel82]

132. With the neocons

it was way easier for them to slip in through the republican party instead of the democratic party. Why? How they use religion to get their agenda done. All the "culture of life" stuff. That's why they use the phrase so much in everything they do whether it be with Social Security, Iraq, or education. Even with the Patriot Act they'd find someway to use it. One look at their polices shows though that they aren't republican. People for the most part aren't too involved in politics since it's so dirty. Only if you're a political junkie and keep up with what's going on would you know this. All the neocons have to do is quote some scripture here and there and use people's emotions with their religious beliefs and you got them as voters hook, line and sinker. To me you can tell the difference between a neocon and a republican by how much they talk about religion. As I mentioned in a previous post here in my town we're having a mayor race and there was one guy who was republican (I knew because my republican Congressman endorsed him) and he hardly talked about religion in his polices except in his biography and the other two also mentioned it at least once. I'm just glad nothing with religion has popped up in this mayoral race except once. Oy.

[B Calm]

49. Wow, I'm printing this off and handing out copies.

[Swamp Rat]

51. I'm tellin' ya...

I just sent it to x-tian liberterians that like Ron Paul. If we each adopt a disaffected winger, then they will carry this message to people we do not normally have contact with - fundies/libertarians deep in the heart of lizard country. :D

The worm is about to turn. :)

[Disturbed]

54. LOL

"Dude, I can tell you where Leo Strauss wiped his ass!"

Please....Don't.

[Swamp Rat]

58. I wish Ron Paul would say something about Tom DeLay too.

Let's hammer "the hammer!"

[FourStarDemocrat]

53. Ron Paul hs been warning of a totalitarian state under Bush for awhile now

I've been reading some of his articles here and there for a couple of years, and he is highly concerned about the Bu$h regime. I agree though, that he's probrably somewhat isolated among Texas republicans, and among republicans in general in the house.

[DemonFighterLives]

59. Ron sounds pretty sensible on the war issues

This war was a mistake from the beginning. When and if other repukes wake up, they will see the BFEE's true colors.

I am so tired of seeing this prancing fool * dancing around the death of the Pope dancing on the graves of 100,000 Iraqi's. He also provided Iraq with the gift that keeps on giving - Depleted Uranium

:freak:

[LynnTheDem]

60. Ron Paul warning Congress AGAINST invading Iraq, Sept 2002; THEY KNEW.

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16.
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

[Al-CIAda]

81. Good post- R. Paul wants 9/11 TRUTH as well. -n/t

[Liberty Belle]

118. Shame on Congress for not listening.

[lonestarnot]

62. All I can say is he is a little late, but better late than never.

[roguevalley]

63. Wayne something or other blasted bush about this too. Seems to

me that they see the handwriting on the wall.

[lonestarnot]

64. I think that this may be what all the grandstanding is about and nothing

more.

[InvisibleTouch]

65. I think it's telling that we've never heard this guy's name before.

Well, at least I haven't. I hope we hear it more often from now on, in this context.

[xchrom]

66. ok -- so much for consistency -- when will he sign on with conyers?

i appreciate his stance on the war -- but two crooked elctions here should get a speech on floor from him.

[Liberty Belle]

119. Send him documentation, especially the new report by the Univ. profs.

[FreedomAngel82]

133. Also

David Cobb's website has tons of stuff too. http://www.votecobb.org He updates it pretty reguarly.

[Scooter24]

138. Do you have a link to that report?

I haven't come across it. Thanks

[Mari333]

67. TOO little too LATE

If I knew the truth then, so should they have known it.
No mercy.

[Toots]

68. This rumsfeld quote should be repeated often

"Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results."

Needs tidying up a bit when we don't like the results...sound familiar? Diebold

[FreedomAngel82]

134. Exactly

After in Iraq they had "elections" I remember reading they cried "fraud" and before that Allawi had 4% and then after they cried fraud results came out and he had 14%. Hmm....

[davhill]

71. The Libertarians are doing our job.

They are the only true organizated opposition to the Bush dictatorship. They stand up for the constitution while our Democratic leadership lines up behind Bush and yells "me too".

[splat@14]

73. Great Speech, really hits the nail on the head.

I don't know if this is a change of heart from his opinion 2 years ago or not. If so, you'd have to be suspicious about the change and why now. Regardless, I'm sending it to Kay Bailey-Hutichinson, John Cornyn, and my congressman, Kevin Brady (even though he may have already heard it)for their comments.
I always get replies from KBH, occasional from JC, never from KB.

[derby378]

74. Didn't Al From and the DLC crowd support invading Iraq?

If so, let's toss out the DLC and doom them to hear the "Dean Scream" over and over again in the afterlife.

Ron Paul hit it on the head. A shame when he's more credible on this issue than Lieberman, Clinton, et al.



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3969238247

[Pachamama]

75. Now THAT's A REAL REPUBLICAN and PATRIOT Folks!

Wow! I agree with everything he said...

Why can't more Republicans (and Dems) for that matter be a true American Patriot like Ron Paul?

[paineinthearse]

97. He's a LIBERTARIAN, sheesh! nt

[Deja Q]

78. I like him more and more!

:yourock:

And you for posting this!

:yourock: :yourock:

[Up2Late]

79. Anyone have a list of Senators up for 2006 and the Reps facing...

strong challengers in 2006? It would be interesting to see who's on the same page as the WH and who's on the WH black list so far.

[beltanefauve]

146. Yes,

http://www.modernvertebrate.com/elections/2006-national/
(and I'm Up2Late myself!)

[go west young man]

82. Unbelievably amazing and accurate letter...

finally someone who sees it like it really is and a Repub to boot! Maybe there is some hope. We need our Democratic Reps to be asking these same questions over and over again and quit hiding. Its time to speak out on this madness and call it like it is before this democracy is dead and gone.

[indepat]

87. My only suggestions to Congressman Paul: watch your back, Jack and

for God's sake, stay out of small planes.

[natrat]

88. are they better off? i dont know or care that much

BUT I would bet there are some new Cayman Island accounts that are rather large

[ClintonTyree]

90. Holy Sheep Shit............

Mr. Paul has just confirmed everything we have been saying all along and has the guts to stand up to the cheap thugs that are destroying our country. :yourock:

It's about time some REAL Republicans started looking within themselves and found that they didn't like what they saw. The radical wing of the right, the neo-cons and the fundies will NOT take this lightly. They want world domination and they want it NOW, and won't tolerate having one of their own breaking ranks.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Paul isn't "suicided". He has just thrown down the gauntlet to some pretty shady characters. These bastards WILL seek revenge and try to destroy him by any means possible.

My only hope is that this honesty is contagious and that many more REAL Republicans, the ones that still care about our Democracy, step forward and join Mr. Paul's change of heart.

Maybe there's hope for our country yet. :patriot: I hope so, the outlook has been damn gloomy of late. This sort of honesty renews my faith in America. Thank you Congressman Paul! :loveya:

[Roland99]

92. Day-um!

Well said!

[FreedomAngel82]

136. Question with this

I was wondering. For those of us with republican Congressmen should we send them this and tell them our feelings with Iraq, how we know the Bush administration lied and we want them to investigate and do something about it? Would anything happen?

[Roland99]

160. Anything's worth a shot

My local congresswoman may be ripe right now. A local NG unit member was the one who wrote a letter about lack of armor in Guard units. Northup is apparently getting involved now.

[chomskysright]

93. THANK RON PAUL: 202 225 2831

[Liberty Belle]

120. Kick! Thank Ron Paul: 202-225-2831 (and ask him to impeach!)

I took the liberty of moving your post into the subject line so more will see it.

[jwirr]

98. My God, I cannot believe it! Has the world

turned upside down in the last couple of days? It appears the scales are falling off the eyes finally.

[Borgnine]

100. If we're going to save this country...

...we need to be willing to work with the libertarians and old-school Republicans much like the neocon and fundies latched on to each other to destroy it. There's time to debate our differences later, but right now we're losing a fight for survival and people like Ron Paul are our allies.

[Liberty Belle]

121. Bingo. Here's what I'm working on to wake up our community:

My DFA media committee here wants to organize a speaker's bureau to address community groups on the need to preserve our Democracy.
I want to bring a Democrat and a Republican speaker to each meeting (or at least a reformed Republican). Topics to be covered would include government propaganda, civil liberties threats under the Patriot Act, etc., excessive government secretary, voting fraud and the need for electoral reform, the disastrous economic policies, the dismantling of social safety nets, and anything else we can dream up to appeal to the average voter, regardless of party affiliation.

[Jacobin]

102. A Kick for a great Libertarian foreign policy rant

[paineinthearse]

103. Oh yee of little memory! - Ron Paul speech posted to DU in February.

See prior Ron Paul speech posted to DU in February.

Oh yee of little memory!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3093605

===============================================================

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst020705.htm

What does Freedom Really Mean?

February 7, 2005


“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Ronald Reagan


We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

*Politics and the English Language, 1946.

[Calvinist Basset]

105. Fascinating . . .

Now, if only we can convince folks like him to acknowledge and decry election fraud in our own nation!

[mvd]

106. Cool!

It's been rare for modern-day Repukes to think for themselves instead of playing follow the dictator!

[TwentyFive]

107. I've always liked Ron Paul

He is Libertarian, which is OK with me, considering that they and Progressives are the only ones who are speaking up for peace & freedom nowadays.

[arkie dem]

122. Read Ron Pauls monthly rants

at www.truthnews.com

He's no friend to liberals and progressives.

[Renew Deal]

131. This is the closest to reality of anything I've seen in a long time.

What a speech? He hits everything dead on. This is reality. This is the real world we live in the reality of the situation. I will send him a thank you note and forward this to my reich wing congressman. Thanks for posting. :toast:

[goodhue]

139. nothing new here

Ron Paul has been a consistent critic of the war in Iraq, and votes against the war appropriations. Most recently, he was one of three republicans to vote against the $82 billion supplemental for Iraq.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll077.xml

[goodhue]

140. March 4, 2002: Before We Bomb Baghdad.....

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst030402.htm

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk

March 4, 2002

Before We Bomb Baghdad.....

With our military actions waning in Afghanistan, the administration appears to be gearing up for a second phase in the Middle East. Although the Al-Queda threat has not yet been fully neutralized, political and popular support for a full-scale war against Iraq is growing. The President explicitly named Iraq as a target in his State of the Union address, and British Prime Minister Blair recently stated his backing for such an invasion.

Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It's simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests.

First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war before he proceeds against Iraq. Undeclared wars represent one of the greatest threats to our constitutional separation of powers over the last 50 years, beginning with our "police action" in Korea. This most sacred legislative function- the power to send our young people into harm's way- must be exercised by Congress alone, the body most directly connected to the electorate.

The undeclared wars waged by various Presidents during the last century represent a very serious usurpation of the legislative function, adding greatly to the rise of the "imperial Presidency" that we witnessed so clearly during the Clinton years. I'm always amazed that Congress is quite willing to simply give away one of its greatest powers, especially when it spends so much time otherwise trying to expand its powers by passing extra-constitutional legislation. The reason for this, I'm afraid, is Congress learned in Vietnam that wars sometimes go very badly, and few want to be on record as having voted for a war if they can avoid it. So despite all the talk in Congress of "supporting the President," nobody wants to really support him by doing the obvious and passing a declaration of war.

Constitutional questions aside, we have to ask ourselves quite simply whether it serves any national interest to invade Iraq. So often we lose sight of the true purpose of our military, which is to defend our borders against attack. Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions- all for more than a decade. We haven't done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we've done them because we want to protect our oil interests. Yet these actions have harmed the people of Iraq, not the Hussein regime. If anything, our policies serve to generate support for Hussein, who uses American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect attention from his own oppression. Sadly, we've made him a martyr in Iraq and much of the wider Muslim world, alienating many otherwise pro-Western Iraqi moderates in the process. I question the wisdom, and the necessity, of once again traveling 6000 miles to pick a fight with a third-world Muslim nation that is simply not threatening us.

Congress should not allow any administration to take our nation to war without the consent of the people. I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims who understand the necessity of our actions against Al-Queda, but who will object to an invasion of Iraq.

[goodhue]

141. August 5, 2002: Will Congress Debate War with Iraq?

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst080502.htm

Will Congress Debate War with Iraq?

The Senate Foreign Relations committee spent much of last week hearing testimony about Iraq. A second U.S. invasion of Iraq seems a foregone conclusion, as the testimony focused not on the wisdom of such an invasion, but rather only on how and when it should be done. Never mind that our own State department and CIA have stated that Iraq is not involved in terrorism; never mind that we’re not discussing some of our so-called allies like Saudi Arabia, which actually funded and harbored those responsible for September 11th. None of those testifying questioned for a minute the President’s absolute authority to order a military invasion at will.

One expert not invited to testify at the Senate hearings was Scott Ritter. Mr. Ritter is a Republican, a twelve-year veteran of the Marine Corps, a former intelligence officer, and a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He is a widely respected expert on the region, having dealt directly with Iraqi officials- and he is a very harsh critic of Saddam Hussein. The only problem is that he disagrees with the President and Congress about our war plans, arguing that Iraq poses no military threat to the United States. So although he is perhaps the most qualified person in Washington to speak on the subject, his viewpoint was not heard.

On C-SPAN last week, Mr. Ritter called the Senate hearings nothing less than a "sham," likening them to a "Stalinist kangaroo court" rather than a real inquiry designed to educate Senators with facts about Iraq.

Whether one agrees with Mr. Ritter’s views or not, it’s clear the Senate conducted nothing more than show hearings designed to support the predetermined conclusion that America must invade Iraq.

The fundamental question before Congress- whether the legislative branch once again will ignore its constitutional duty to declare war- remains unasked. The undeclared wars of the last 50 years- including Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq- represent nothing less than congressional cowardice, an unwillingness by members to carry out their sworn legislative duties. The result is an increasingly powerful presidency, and a terrible violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

War is war, no matter what we call it. When we bomb another country, when we send troops, planes, and warships to attack it, we are at war. Calling war a "police action" or a "peacekeeping mission" does not change the reality. War constitutionally cannot be waged by executive order- the President’s status as Commander-in-Chief gives him authority only to execute war, not initiate it. The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war precisely because the founders wanted the most representative branch of government, not an imperial President, to make the grave decision to send our young people into harm’s way. We owe it to those young people and the Constitution to have a sober congressional debate before we initiate war in Iraq.

[goodhue]

142. August 26, 2002: War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law?

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst082602.htm

War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law?

The chorus of voices calling for the United States to attack Iraq grows louder. Recent weeks had seen growing controversy concerning the wisdom of such an attack, including controversy over the need for congressional approval for an invasion. The war hawk TV pundits have been busy working to quell the controversy by insisting the President has complete authority to wage war without congressional involvement.

The crux of their remarks is that we should not question whether the U.S. will go to war with Iraq, but only how and when the war should waged.

Yet whether to invade Iraq is precisely the question, and only Congress can answer it. The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. The President cannot wage war legally without a congressional declaration. His status as commander-in-chief gives him authority only to execute war, not initiate it. The law in Article I, section 8, is quite clear. The undeclared wars of the 20th century may provide precedent for unilateral action by the President, but it is an illegal precedent.

It appears that most in Congress would support an invasion of Iraq, so why can’t we simply agree to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war?

The rule of law separates civilized societies from despotic societies. Unlike Iraq, the United States is a nation of laws, not men. We are blessed to live under the Constitution, rather than under a King or dictator. Yet if we blatantly violate the Constitution by pursuing an undeclared war, we violate the rule of law. We invite the President, and future Presidents, to act in an imperial manner. We damage the separation of powers that is so critical to our freedom. We act more like Iraq than the United States of America when we ignore the Constitution.

I’m puzzled that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers. Why do members of Congress from both parties, most of whom work incessantly to INCREASE the scope of congressional powers, suddenly refuse to wield power in one area where they have legitimate legislative authority? It mostly has to do with cowardice and politics. You can bet Republicans would be demanding congressional involvement if Clinton was in office.

The solution is simple. Follow the Constitution, debate the wisdom of a war in Iraq, and publicly record a vote on a declaration of war. Let Congress do its job. The young men and women who will be called upon to fight for the Constitution in Iraq deserve to see it followed at home.

[goodhue]

143. Septermber 3, 2002: IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT WAR IN IRAQ

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst090302.htm

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT WAR IN IRAQ

As Congress reconvenes this week, the possibility of war with Iraq looms larger than ever. I believe the Constitution clearly requires a declaration of war by Congress before a military invasion of Iraq can take place. I also believe that Congress and the American people need to engage in a sober and thorough debate over the wisdom of such an invasion before we commit our young soldiers to a new war in Iraq. At a minimum, the following questions should be carefully considered:

Why do so many knowledgeable military experts, including former generals Anthony Zinni, Brent Scowcroft, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Colin Powell, caution against war in Iraq? These men understand the geopolitics and military realities of Iraq and the Middle East from their service during the first Bush administration. Are the brilliant military minds of a decade ago suddenly irrelevant? Note that those who actually have experienced war are the most reluctant to call for war, in stark contrast to the mostly non-veteran pundits clamoring to "take Saddam out."

Is Iraq a real danger to us, or have the war hawks wildly exaggerated the threat posed by this impoverished third-world nation?

Do you personally feel strongly enough about Iraq to leave your home, family, and job to join the war? If you are beyond the age of military service, would you want your children or grandchildren to do the same? After Pearl Harbor, almost all Americans would have answered yes to this question, but do we really have the same national unity and clear sense of purpose when it comes to Iraq?

What would you give up at home to provide the billions of dollars necessary to prosecute the war? Would you support a huge tax increase, or give up your Social Security benefits for a decade? I know many Americans would be happy to sacrifice, but we should be honest about what this war might cost us and judge whether it’s worth it.

Everyone wants a regime change in Iraq, but who exactly will replace Hussein? Will we support a handpicked successor who later turns on us, much like bin Laden did after we funded his resistance to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Remember that the Kurds, our supposed friends in northern Iraq, have fundamentalist factions that are aligned with bin Laden and are allegedly hiding al Qaeda. We risk replacing the secular Hussein regime with a more fundamentalist Kurd regime that hates western values.

How long will we be in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is ousted? Will we be nation-building for decades, as we almost certainly will be in Afghanistan? We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes made in Korea and Vietnam by entering another conflict without clear objectives and a definite exit strategy.

Does an invasion of Iraq play into bin Laden’s hands by turning the entire Islamic world against us? Will an Iraq war expand into a Middle East war against Israel? Will Islamic terrorists mount attacks in America and around the world to protest the war?

If we are justified in attacking Iraq, what about the dozens of other countries that pose much more of a threat to us? Why aren’t the war hawks calling for an invasion of Iran or especially Saudi Arabia, which harbored most of the September 11th terrorists?

With American forces stretched thin in the Middle East and the administration preoccupied, will China take the opportunity to invade Taiwan? Will India and Pakistan engage in a full-fledged war? Will adversaries like Russia consider us weakened and move against us?

Finally, do the American people, and not just a handful of advisors to the President, really want this war?

All of these questions, and many more, need to be asked and answered in a full and robust congressional debate.

[goodhue]

144. September 9, 2002: The Case against War in Iraq

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst090902.htm

The Case against War in Iraq

For weeks I have been arguing that Congress needs to debate the wisdom of a war in Iraq. Recently I gave a speech before the House of Representatives outlining why I believe such a war would be exceedingly unwise.

First, there are practical military reasons not to initiate a war in Iraq. Our military has been severely weakened over the last decade. Conservative estimates call for 200,000 troops to mount a successful invasion of Iraq. Placing 200,000 soldiers in Iraq- with hundreds of thousands already deployed around the globe- will further dilute our ability to defend our own shores.

Remember, we do not know exactly how long this conflict will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war, or six years. We ought to listen to the generals and other military experts, including Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Zinni, and Norman Schwarzkopf, who are now advising us NOT to go to war. They understand that our troops have been spread too thin around the world, and it is dangerous from a purely military standpoint to go to war today.

There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our already faltering economy. An invasion of Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars, especially when we cannot know the outcome or duration of the conflict. Our national debt is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, yet we are talking about spending a hundred billion dollars pursuing another nation-building adventure in Iraq. What will happen to the economy if oil skyrockets to $30 a barrel and lines form at gas stations? Will the current recession deepen? What will happen to the deficit? We must not kid ourselves about the economic ramifications.

There are clear philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.

Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first strike" doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.

If we once again wage war without a clear declaration of war by Congress, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, we further damage the Constitution. I fear we will engage our troops in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with the lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. When Congress evades its responsibilities and allows war to be declared by the President or an international body, it ceases to represent the very people for whom the war supposedly will be fought.

[goodhue]

145. April 4, 2003: War Profiteers

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst040703.htm

War Profiteers

The president asked Congress last week to authorize new funding for the war in Iraq, which was not paid for in the wasteful budget recently passed in the House of Representatives. You might assume that Congress would simply approve legislation that pays for military supplies and hardware, troop wages, ammunition, fuel, food, and the like. In other words, the bread and butter items that our troops need to prosecute the war in Iraq.

But nothing is simple in Washington. Congress could not resist the opportunity to put its hands in taxpayers’ pockets by adding 20 billion dollars in completely unrelated spending to the final bill. In essence, Congress is so addicted to spending that it will use any opportunity, even a war, to spend money for every conceivable reason- however unrelated to the war in Iraq.

We must understand that America is in a financial crisis. Tax revenues are down due to the faltering economy, but congressional spending has exploded by more than 22% in just two years. As a result, annual deficits have risen rapidly, and the national debt now approaches 6.5 trillion dollars. Almost all of this new spending has been completely unrelated to homeland defense or national security concerns. The same old failed domestic agencies and special-interest pork programs have received the bulk of the dollars. While Congress should fund constitutional federal functions like national defense, our very solvency as a nation is being threatened by unconstitutional spending.

Here are some examples of what ended up in the “war funding” bill:

-$3.2 billion for an airline bailout-even though the airlines always seem to be troubled and always feel they deserve tax money. If we bail out the airlines, why not the hotels, restaurants, and rental car agencies that have been affected by 9-11 and the war in Iraq? Why not every industry that’s suffering?;
-$125 million for congressional security, to make sure members are safe even if the country is not;
-$11 million for salaries and expenses for the House of Representatives, who already approved a pay raise for themselves last Fall;
-$250 million for Department of Agriculture grants;
-$69 million for something called the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust;
-$5.5 million for the Library of Congress;
-$6.8 million for the Congressional Research Service and General Accounting Office;
-$100,000 for the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The bill also includes $8 billion in foreign aid, which is especially egregious given the state of the American economy. How can we ask taxpayers to send billions abroad with things so tough for many here at home?

The $ 8 billion includes:

-$1 billion in "economic assistance" for Turkey, even though they refused to let America use its bases to stage our assault on Iraq and have only grudgingly allowed use of its airspace;
-$700 million for Jordan;
-$500 million for Egypt;
-$127 million for Afghanistan;
-$1 billion in for Israel;
-$175 million for Pakistan;
-$170 million to train the “Afghan National Army";

and the list goes on and on. All of this is of course in addition to the standard foreign aid we send these nations and many others every year.

These are just some examples of how Congress takes every possible opportunity to spend your money, even when it should be focused on the war in Iraq. Was it really too much to ask for a clean bill to fund the president's request, a bill unencumbered by pork handouts and useless foreign aid? Apparently not even war can prevent Congress from shamelessly sticking its hands in your pockets while cloaking itself in “support the troops” rhetoric.

[goodhue]

147. June 6, 2003: The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst060903.htm

The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq

Recently fired Army Secretary Thomas White said last week that senior defense officials “are unwilling to come to grips” with the scale of the postwar US obligation in Iraq. Similarly, in February, Army chief of staff General Eric Shinseki brought the same message to Congress: occupation of Iraq would take “several hundred thousand” troops. Both men have been publicly admonished.

But as our commitment in Iraq continues to expand, how far off are these statements?

A recent Washington Post editorial suggests that, "The reality is that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will likely be in Iraq for years to come, and (that) country will not recover without extensive investment by the United States and other international donors." Of course, what this means is that American taxpayers are to be squeezed in every direction to pay to “fix” Iraq. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that the open-ended American military presence in Iraq is not welcome: in the past two weeks eight American soldiers have, tragically, been killed in Iraq.

This is not what the attack on Iraq was supposed to be about. It wasn’t supposed to be about nation-building. It wasn’t supposed to be about an indefinite US military occupation. “Regime change” was supposed to mean that once Saddam Hussein was overthrown the Iraqi people would run their own affairs. “Liberation” was supposed to mean that the Iraqi people would be free to form their own government and rebuild their own economy.

Yet the United States is spending tens of billions of dollars and more rebuilding Iraq. The US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, scheduled to return home after its success in Iraq, will remain “indefinitely” because securing Iraq is proving more difficult than defense planners envisioned. The US civilian authority controlling Iraq has cancelled plans to allow the Iraqis to form their own provisional government. American bureaucrats are even running the Iraqi media.

What are we getting ourselves into?

I see the real possibility of our government getting into an expensive, long-term entanglement in Iraq at exactly the time we are beginning to see financial troubles on the horizon. As our nation slinks further into debt and back into deficit, we are making decisions that will literally put our children and grandchildren on the line to pay interest payments for our current policy toward Iraq.

This policy threatens the long-term health not just of our economy but domestic spending on items like education and social security. While some of us in Congress raised these concerns prior to the beginning of the war with Iraq, our questions went unanswered. Instead of focusing on how this commitment would almost certainly drain our resources for years to come, the policy debate wrongly focused almost exclusively on whether we would have the “moral support” of our “allies” and international organizations such as NATO and the UN.

When American policymakers consider the wisdom of foreign entanglements it would be best that they first understand the long-term implications for the people we are elected to represent. We failed to do that with Iraq and the length, difficulty, and seriousness of the long-term commitment is only now coming to be realized by those who advocated this entanglement. Unfortunately, once a project such as this has begun it becomes extremely difficult to set the ship aright and change the course of policy to better reflect the interests of our nation and its citizens. One thing is clear: winning the military battle against Saddam Hussein may well prove the easiest - and perhaps least costly - part.

[goodhue]

148. September 1, 2003: Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst090103.htm

Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?

The recent bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq has refocused the world’s attention on the dangerous situation in that nation. The Bush administration is now softening its position against UN involvement, and is considering the use of UN military forces to serve as an international peacekeeping coalition in Iraq.

We should not expect any international coalition to help us pay the bills for occupying Iraq, however. American taxpayers alone will bear the tremendous financial burden of nation building in Iraq. We are already spending about 5 billion dollars in Iraq every month, a number likely to increase as the ongoing instability makes it clear that more troops and aid are needed. We will certainly spend far more than the 65 billion dollars originally called for by the administration to prosecute the war. The possibility of spending hundreds of billions in Iraq over several years is very real. This is money we simply don’t have, as evidenced by the government’s deficit spending- borrowing- to finance the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to date.

It’s easy for politicians to say, “We will spend whatever it takes to rebuild Iraq,” but it’s not their money. Occupying Iraq is not a matter of noble national resolve like World War II. The cost of restoring order will be enormous, and we need to carefully weigh the supposed benefits and ask ourselves exactly what we hope to get for our money. I doubt many Americans believe Iraq is worth bankrupting our nation or saddling future generations with billions more in debt.

The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq. It’s not enough for our political and military leaders to make vague references to some future time when democratic rule and a civil society somehow will emerge in Iraq. It’s patently unrealistic to expect that nation’s various warring factions to suddenly embrace representative democracy and accept the outcome of a western-style vote. Even if open elections could be held, the majority might well choose an anti-American fundamentalist regime. This puts Washington in a Catch 22: The U.S. clearly will influence the creation of a new Iraqi government to ensure it is friendly to America, yet the perception that we installed the government will create further hostility toward America. There obviously are no easy solutions to the dilemmas we face in Iraq, and the complexity of the political and social realities begs the question: How do we ever hope to get out? If real stability and democratic rule simply cannot be attained in Iraq, are we prepared to occupy it for decades to come?

The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region. Human tragedy aside, we have spent half a century and more than one trillion of today’s dollars in Korea. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear technology, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, while the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the brave men who fought in Korea continue to serve there. Although the situation in Iraq is different, the lesson learned in Korea is clear. We must not allow our nation to become entangled in another endless, intractable, overseas conflict. We literally cannot afford to have the occupation of Iraq stretch on for years.

[goodhue]

149. March 22, 2004: Iraq One Year Later

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst032204.htm

Iraq One Year Later

The Iraq war began about one year ago with the swift and decisive overthrow of Baghdad and the Hussein regime. We are only beginning to understand, however, the true scope of our ongoing occupation of a nation rife with civil, ethnic, and tribal conflict. July stands as the deadline for our provisional government to relinquish control to an emerging Iraqi government, but we are kidding ourselves about just how long American forces will need to remain involved.

More than 550 Americans have died in Iraq; roughly10,000 have been wounded. American taxpayers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. We must not be afraid to face these facts and understand the terrible cost of war.

Were these sacrifices worth it? To answer that question, we have to look at the justifications given for our invasion of Iraq.

One justification was that Saddam Hussein ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions. Whether this was true or not was none of our concern. America should never act at the behest of the UN or help enforce its illegitimate edicts. America should never commit troops to any UN action. We should not even be a member of the UN, but rather should ignore it completely. Membership in the UN is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty. It was nonsensical for conservatives suddenly to cite Iraq’s purported lack of cooperation with the UN as justification for war.

The second justification for invading Iraq was that Mr. Hussein posed a threat to the United States. This was not true. Hussein had only a small army, and virtually no navy or air force. He had no long-range weapons and no ability to strike the US 6000 miles away. He was not working with bin Laden or al Qaeda terrorists. He was a despicable tyrant at home, but the liberation of Iraq from his clutches was given as a new justification only after the American public had absorbed overwhelming evidence that he posed no threat to us.

Is America better off as a result of our war in Iraq? The young men and women who were hurt or killed certainly are no better off. Their families are no better off. Taxpayers are no better off. Whether we are safer from terrorism here at home is an open question. We all hope and pray nothing happens. But even our own intelligence forces cautioned that an invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq could breed resentment among sympathetic Muslims and serve as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. As commentator Lew Rockwell states, “It is not caving in to the bees to stop poking a stick into their hive.”

Are the Iraqis better off? Saddam is gone, along with his murderous cohorts, and that certainly presents a positive opportunity for the Iraqi people. But we cannot be sure that the Hussein regime will be replaced by something better. Iraq is still very unstable and divided between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd factions. Civil war could ensue upon the departure of American troops.

Even if we assume that anything will be an improvement over the Hussein regime, the fundamental question remains: Why should young Americans be hurt or killed to liberate foreign nations? I have never heard a convincing answer to this question. If we sacrifice 500 lives to liberate Iraq, should we sacrifice five million American lives to liberate the people of North Korea, Taiwan, Tibet, China, Cuba, and countless African nations? Should we invade every country that has an oppressive government? Are nation-building and empire part of our national credo? Those who answer yes to these questions should have the integrity to admit that our founders urged the opposite approach, namely a foreign policy rooted in staying out of the affairs of other nations.

[goodhue]

150. May 10, 2004: Passing the Buck in Iraq

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst051004.htm

Passing the Buck in Iraq

The allegations of prisoner torture by our troops in Iraq are disturbing, and clearly drastic action must be taken to ensure such conduct stops immediately. But why are we condemning a small group of low-level reservists when we do not yet know the full story? As revolting as the pictures are, we cannot know with certainty what took place in Iraq’s prisons based on a few photographs. We do not and cannot know the full story at this point, yet we jump to condemn those who have not even had the benefit of a trial. We appear to be operating on the principle of guilty until proven innocent. It seems convenient and perhaps politically expedient to blame a small group of “bad apples” for what may well turn out to be something completely different – as the continuously widening investigation suggests.

Some of the soldiers in the photographs claim their superior officers and civilian contractors in charge of the interrogations forced them to pose for photos. We have heard that some soldiers put in charge of prisons in Iraq were woefully unprepared for the task at hand. We have heard they were thrown into a terribly confusing, stressful, and dangerous situation with little training and little understanding of the rules and responsibilities. What additional stresses and psychological pressures were applied by those in charge of interrogations? We don’t know. Does this excuse reprehensible behavior? Not in the slightest, but it does suggest we need to get all the facts before drawing conclusions. It is disturbing that little mention is made of the scores of civilian contractors operating in these prisons who may have been the instigators of abuse.

Our current presence in Iraq is nothing more than a nation-building exercise, despite the justifications given before the war. Nation building is an inherently dirty and difficult task, one that our military forces are not trained to perform. Endless occupation of a dangerous and resentful nation is not part of a soldier’s job description. We should condemn unequivocally any soldiers who are found guilty of torturing prisoners, but surely we must also condemn those who put those soldiers into such a rotten situation in the first place.

Members of Congress decry the fact that the administration did not inform us of these abuses and purposely kept Congress out of the information loop. Yet Congress made it clear to the administration from the very beginning that it wanted no responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should have vigorously exercised its responsibilities. This means, first and foremost, that Congress should have voted on a declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Congress, after abandoning this responsibility in October 2002, now complains it is in the dark. Who is to say the legal ambiguity created by the congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the mentality that prisoners need not be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention? Until Congress takes up its constitutional responsibilities, complaints that the administration is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring hollow.

Congress has the power – and the obligation – to keep itself better informed. Congress should hold hearings on the torture allegations, exercising its subpoena power if necessary. Demanding that the administration investigate the matter is simply another example of Congress passing the buck. That’s what got us into trouble in the first place.

[goodhue]

151. June 14, 2004: Torture, War, and Presidential Powers

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst061404.htm

Torture, War, and Presidential Powers

A Wall Street Journal article last week detailed a Department of Defense memo that discusses the legality of interrogation and torture methods in the wake of events at Abu Gharib. The document reportedly advises that the president has authority to order almost any action, including physical or psychological torture, despite federal laws to the contrary. The Pentagon lawyers who drafted the memo were not shy about blatantly asserting that the Commander-In-Chief can break the law when necessary, as evidenced by this quote from the memo: “Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.”

The Justice department, for its part, is depressingly silent on the issue. Attorney General Ashcroft refuses to release an existing Justice department memo on the matter to Congress. Why can’t the American people, much less Congress, see how the Justice department interprets presidential powers and federal torture laws? Why the secrecy? The Justice department is charged with enforcing federal laws, not suspending them or advising federal agencies to ignore them.

Legal issues aside, the American people and government should never abide the use of torture by our military or intelligence agencies. A decent society never accepts or justifies torture. It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence. Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe. God forbid terrorists take American soldiers or travelers hostage and torture them as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Gharib.

The greater issue presented by the Defense department memo, however, is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. Defense department lawyers essentially argue that a president’s powers as Commander-In-Chief override federal laws prohibiting torture, and the Justice department appears to agree. But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties. War has been used by presidents to excuse the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent, to silence speech, to suspend habeas corpus, and even to control entire private industries.

It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.

We are fighting undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an open-ended war against terrorism worldwide. If the president claims extraordinary wartime powers, and we fight undeclared wars with no beginning and no end, when if ever will those extraordinary powers lapse? Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the Constitution simply by asserting “We’re at war”?

Conservatives should understand that the power given the president today will pass to the president’s successors, who may be only too eager to abuse that unbridled power domestically to destroy their political enemies. Remember the anger directed at President Clinton for acting “above the law” when it came to federal perjury charges? An imperial presidency threatens all of us who oppose unlimited state power over our lives.

A strong separation of powers is at the heart of our constitutional liberties. No branch of government should be able to act unilaterally, no matter how cumbersome the legislative process may be. The beauty of the Constitution is that it encourages some degree of gridlock in government, making it harder for any branch to act capriciously or secretly. When we give any president- one man- too much power, we build a foundation for future tyranny.

[goodhue]

152. December 13, 2004: Ignoring Reality in Iraq

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst121304.htm

Ignoring Reality in Iraq


December 13, 2004

A recent study by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications concluded that in the struggle for hearts and minds in Iraq, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.” This Pentagon report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists. It goes on to conclude that our active intervention in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in the region, and strengthened support for radical groups. This is similar to what the CIA predicted in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, before the invasion took place.

Then, earlier this month we learned that the CIA station chief in Baghdad sent a cable back to the US warning that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and not expected to improve any time soon. Other CIA experts also warn that the security situation in Iraq is likely to get even worse in the future. These reports are utterly ignored by the administration.

These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar organization. They represent the US government’s own assessment of our “progress” in Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands of lives. We are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy in Iraq.

This demonstrates once again the folly of nation building, which is something candidate Bush wisely rejected before the 2000 election. The worsening situation in Iraq also reminds us that going to war without a congressional declaration, as the Constitution requires, leads us into protracted quagmires over and over again.

The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct groups of people whom have been at odds with each other for generations. Pundits and politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the US military departs. Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible nation actually creates the conditions for civil war. Instead of an artificial, forced, nationalist unity between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, we should allow each group to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they wish to associate with a central government. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.

Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican policy, but it is not a conservative policy by any means.

Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that “times have changed since the Constitution was written”- in fact, that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution- limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs- has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.

[Liberty Belle]

154. A new reason to impeach Bush--show this to Ron Paul!

Thanks to goodboy for catching this doozy and posting it on DU tonight. Send this to Ron Paul and others!


Bush just publicly committed an impeachable offense (from KOS)


Bush spoke after touring the Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va., about the $1.7 trillion in Treasury bonds that make up the trust fund...

"There is no trust fund -- just IOUs that I saw firsthand. Imagine, the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet."

As JimPortlandOR, pointed out, that was a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically the 14th Amendment. And no complaining about that Mr. Bush, after all you managed to get Scalia to pull a 14th Amendment argument out of his butt to hand you the 2000 election, in direct violation of your GOP Federalism principles.
Let's skip right to the part that was violated by Bush's little remark that should get him impeached:


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Read more here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/6/21482/42154

[AnneD]

155. He's a nut job at times

but he's our nut. He comes up with some good points now and again.

[Swamp Rat]

156. Looks like he saw the light!

:D

[BlueManDude]

159. Not to be cold but - Why should I care if the Iraqi people are better off?

Do I want all people to live with economic, religious and political freedom? Yes. But what is the price to me and my country?

Since when did conservatives give two shits about freedom in the Arab world?

In the runup to war Bush did not go to the nation and ask for our support so we could make life better for the Iraqi people. He would have been laughed out of town.

Instead he lied about threats to our safety.

[Swamp Rat]

166. Nobody can MAKE you empathize for your fellow human.

You make a good point about republicans. I never knew one who gave two shits about an African or an Arab. The Busheviks fooled their own constituency into (pretending) to saving the poor brown people in Iraq, using the national treasury and the blood of American soldiers. Once they realize this, they will want to tar and feather the whole administration... and the cognitive dissonance already appears to be dissipating. :)

HAHA! Dave Chappelle, where are you? :D

[MidwestTransplant]

163. The problem for him is that his argument is too logical

Most of his base won't be able to follow his reasoning. Just too cogent.

[wryter2000]

164. Hokey smoke!

You go, Ron Paul. The solution to the mess we're in is for reasonable people to take back the Republican party.

[lollipop]

165. To be a fly on the wall

in the White House while they were discussing damage control, would be priceless!

[Terran1212]

167. It would be a bored fly

Same garbage about "staying the course" and "defeatist demo-...oh wait that one won't alliterate in this one"

[Swamp Rat]

168. They are the flies, stuck in a web of lies.

"Help me ... heeeeelp meee!"

[Sapphire Blue]

169. What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 26, 2005

(This was broadcast on C-SPAN)

An excerpt...

What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?

America’s policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in the affairs of others? Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting-- hundreds of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked: What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true republic’s goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it not possible that Washington’s admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice even today?

In medicine mistakes are made-- man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made, incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care, advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis, treatment, and medication. Adjustments are made to assure the best results. But what if a doctor never checks the success or failure of a treatment, or ignores bad results and assumes his omnipotence-- refusing to concede that the initial course of treatment was a mistake? Let me assure you, the results would not be good. Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place restraints on this type of bullheaded behavior.

Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power corrupts!

<snip>

If we’re willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask ourselves a few questions:

1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed?

2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction?

3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies?

4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?

5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in the region?

6. What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?

7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?

8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim, and what is an acceptable price for “doing good?”

9. What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?

10. What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want our troops removed?

11. What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?

12. What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?

13. What if it turns out radical Muslims don’t hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims?

14. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?

15. What if we discover that democracy can’t be spread with force of arms?

16. What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?

17. What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?

18. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?

19. What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?

20. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won’t have to fight here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?

21. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?

22. What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, “justified” by current U.S. policy?

23. What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?

24. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?

25. What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war against them?

26. What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret-- an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?

27. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed?

28. What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?

29. What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?

30. What if the “stop-loss” program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leadership running the war?

31. What if the Pentagon’s legal task-force opinion that the President is not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy?

32. What if the intelligence reform legislation-- which gives us bigger, more expensive bureaucracy-- doesn’t bolster our security, and distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?

33. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an unwinnable guerrilla war?

34. What if we discover, too late, that we can’t afford this war-- and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?

<snip>

But the bigger question is:

What if I’m right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic security, yet no one pays attention?

For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?


The full speech transcript is available @ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr012605.htm

[Idioteque]

170. Ron Paul on The Pope

"Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was one of the great religious leaders of modern times, and an eloquent champion of human freedom and dignity. Unlike all-too-many misguided religious leaders, the Pope understood that liberty, both personal and economic, is a necessary condition for the flourishing of human virtue.

The Pope¡Çs commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

Unfortunately, few in American politics today adhere to the consistent ethic of life, thus we see some who cheered the Pope¡Çs stand against the war and the death penalty while downplaying or even openly defying his teachings against abortion and euthanasia.

Others who cheered the Pope¡Çs opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these ¡Èpro-life supporters of war¡É tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by distorting the Just War doctrine, which the Pope properly interpreted as denying sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent conservative commentator even suggested that the pope was the ¡Èenemy¡É of the United States.

In conclusion, I am pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life, and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to be pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that inevitably accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and pro-compassion but supporting the legal killing of the unborn."

...at least he's consistent.

[Hardknock]

172. IMPEACH BUSH WHEN WE WIN IN 2006!!!

happy day! :)

[Independent_Liberal]

174. Excellent! Where do I contact him?

That was a great speech. I have to thank this guy for standing up like that. I think he's my favorite Republican of all time.

I agree it's time to expose the corruption while we still can. He should be the one leading the impeachment charges against the administration.

[JerseygirlCT]

177. This line says it about the 2004 elections here, too:

"Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results. "

By the Iraqi elections, they probably had it down to a science.

[Ilsa]

181. He is my Congressman and sometimes he scares me.

He'd be happy to let all the social programs and safety net be dissolved. He is against income taxes; says it is unconstitutional. Yeah, he can be a purist on these issues.

If there is some way to use his point of view against Bush, great. But don't count on him being the answer to our prayers.

[Brooklyn Michael]

182. Never thought I'd say this, but....

A hearty KICK for the Texas Republican!

Woop! Woop! :dem: