Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2003 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
2003 Ron Paul 108:2
Mr. Chairman, this $87 billion is a little bit steep for my wallet, and it is a
little bit steep for probably the wallets
of most Americans. So I will be voting
against it.
2003 Ron Paul 108:3
But I understand this is called a supplemental. It is interesting that it is a
supplemental because we have not
passed a budget; so I have to suggest
maybe we ought to call this a preemptive
budget rather than a supplemental.
But it is the largest, and to
have it before the regular budget is
pretty astounding that we are going to
spend this type of money.
2003 Ron Paul 108:4
But I want to take this minute I have to quote from a book, A World Transformed,
and this was written about 5
years ago talking about Iraq. And I
think this is a very serious quote and
something worth listening to:
2003 Ron Paul 108:5
Trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein
. . . would have incurred incalculable
human and political costs. Apprehending
him was probably impossible
. . . We would have been forced to occupy
Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq
. . . There was no available exit strategy
we could see, violating another of
our principles. Furthermore, we had
been self-consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the
post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying
Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding
the United Nations mandate,
would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression
that we hoped to establish. Had we
gone the invasion route, the United
States could conceivably be an occupying
power in a bitterly hostile land.
2003 Ron Paul 108:6
That was written 5 years ago, very perceptive. It was written by President
Bush, Sr. So I think we are here now in
a very hostile land with a very difficult
situation.
2003 Ron Paul 108:7
I was a strong opponent of the war for two reasons: one, I sincerely believed
our national security was not
threatened, and I also was convinced
that it had no relationship to 9–11; and
I think those two concerns have been
proven to be correct. Many who had
voted against the war now suggest that
they might vote for this appropriation
because they feel it is necessary to
vote to support the troops. I think that
is a red herring argument because if we
take a poll, and there have been some
recent polls of the troops in Iraq, we
find out that probably all of them
would love to come home next week.
So I do not see how a vote against this
appropriation can be construed. As a
matter of fact, that is challenging the
motivation of those of us who will oppose
the legislation, that we do not
support the troops. So I am in support
of voting against this appropriation.