Home Page

Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul Iraq Book of Ron Paul Iraq Bombing Iraq Would Be The Result Of Flawed Foreign Policy 27 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 1:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it appears the administration is about to bomb Iraq. The stated reason is to force UN inspections of every inch of Iraqi territory to rule out the existence of any weapons of mass destruction. The President’s personal problems may influence this decision, but a flawed foreign policy is behind this effort. Iraq Bombing Iraq Would Be The Result Of Flawed Foreign Policy 27 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 1:2 Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all have weapons of mass destruction. This makes no sense. Iraq State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:11 A Kuwaiti legislator was quoted as saying, “The use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it.” Iraq State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:15 These days, not even the United States moves without permission from the UN Security Council. In checking with the U.S. Air Force about the history of U–2 flights in Iraq, over Iraq, and in their current schedules, I was firmly told the Air Force was not in charge of these flights, the UN was. The Air Force suggested I call the Defense Department. Iraq State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:21 So we must be prepared to pay, as we already have started to, through our foreign aid appropriations. This promotes on a grand scale a government business partnership that is dangerous to those who love liberty and detest fascism. And yet, most Members of Congress will say little, ask little, and understand little, while joining in the emotional outburst directed towards the local thugs running the Mideastern fiefdoms like Iraq and Libya. Iraq State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:26 Many resolutions on principle are similar to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which became equivalent to a declaration of war and allowed for a massive loss of life in the Vietnam fiasco. Most Members of Congress fail to see the significance of threatening violence against countries like Libya, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, or Haiti. Yet our credibility suffers since our policies can never satisfy both sides of each regional conflict. Iraq State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:29 We were allies of Iraq when it used poison gas against the Kurds and across the border into Iran. We support the Turks even though they murdered Kurds, but we condemn the Iraqis when they do the same thing. Iraq State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:30 There are more than 25,000 Soviet nuclear warheads that cannot be accounted for, and all we hear about from the politicians is about Iraq’s control of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq America Should Move Cautiously Regarding Iraq 4 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 3:2 In the next week or two, we may have a resolution coming to this floor endorsing the bombing and, in essence, allowing for a declaration of war. Saddam Hussein does not pose any threat to our national security. We should be going very cautiously. Bombing might cause some accident regarding biological warfare. It may cause an irrational act by Saddam Hussein with one of his neighbors. It is bound to kill innocent lives, innocent civilians in Iraq. It could kill many American flyers as well. It costs a lot of money. Iraq Congress Should Move Cautiously On Resolution Regarding Iraq 5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 4:2 Today there is a resolution floating around this Congress that urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq. We should remember history. We lost 50,000 men after we passed that last resolution. We do not have a sensible policy with Iraq. We should move cautiously. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:4 The three specific problems that I want to mention, and I mention these because I think this is what the American people are concerned about, and sometimes we here inside the Beltway do not listen carefully to the people around the country. The three issues are these: The first are the scandals that we hear so much about, the second is an IMF bailout, and the third has to do with Iraq. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:8 Now, the third issue is Iraq, and I want to talk more about that, because I am fearful we are about ready to do something very foolish, very foolish for our country, and very dangerous. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:11 Then, once again, we have this potential for going to war in Iraq, again, not because we follow the Constitution, not because we follow the rule of law, but because the United Nations has passed a resolution. Some have even argued that the U.N. resolution passed for the Persian Gulf War is enough for our President to initiate the bombings. Others claim that just the legislation, the resolution-type legislation passed in 1990 that endorsed this process is enough for us to go and pursue this war venture. But the truth is, if we followed the rules and if we followed the law, we would never commit an act of war, which bombing is, unless we have a declaration of war here in the Congress. Somebody told me just yesterday that yes, but that is so old fashioned. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:19 A Kuwaiti legislator who was not willing to reveal his name said the use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it. Most people realize that. In the Middle East, Saddam Hussein has more credibility among his Arab neighbors than he did before the war. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:22 So one would expect with all this money flowing into that country that they should quickly do exactly what we want. But this Foreign Minister was rather blunt: Egypt, a key member of the Gulf War coalition, is opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq. He said, We believe that military action should be avoided and there is room for political efforts. He said, If such action is taken, there will be considerable fallout in the Arab world, he warned. He said, We are not afraid of Saddam. He added that his country believes the crisis is a result of allegations that have not been proven. Yet, we are willing to go and do such a thing as to initiate this massive bombing attack on this country, and there has been nothing proven. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:23 Moussa also said that Iraq’s possession of chemical and biological weapons must be pursued, of course. But this requires cooperation with Iraq, not confrontation. Even our President admits that more weapons have been removed from Iraq since the war ended than which occurred with the hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, as well as 88,000 bombs that were dropped in the whole of World War II, and it did not accomplish the mission. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:29 He goes on to say, “There is room for a political solution. Bear in mind the repercussions in the area. If the United States bombs, there will be Iraqi victims.” Then he asks, “What happens if the public sees a decisive move on the part of Iraq but not toward Israel? We have to take into consideration how the people who live near Iraq respond to something like this.” Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:32 Here we are being more involved in the Middle East process with Iraq in the hope that we are going to bring about peace. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:33 What about another close ally, an ally that we have had since World War II: Turkey. Turkey is not anxious for doing this. They do not want us to take the bombers and the troops out of Turkey. As a matter of fact, they are hesitant about this. This is an article from the Washington Times by Philip Smucker. He said, “Turkey’s growing fears of a clash in Iraq are based largely on what it sees as the ruinous aftermath of the Gulf War.” Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:36 He said that since the war, Turkey has suffered economic losses of some $35 billion stemming from the invigorated Kurdish uprising on the Iraqi border and the shutting down of the border trade, including the Iraqi oil exports through Turkey. They used to have trade; now they do not. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:37 We encouraged the Kurds to revolt and then stepped aside, so the Kurds are unhappy with the Americans because they were disillusioned as to what they thought they were supposed to be doing. “Turkey’s clear preference is for Iraq to regain control of its own Kurdish regions on the Turkish border and resume normal relations with Ankara.” Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:38 Further quoting the foreign ministry of Turkey, “Iraq cannot exercise sovereignty over these regions, so there has become a power vacuum that has created an atmosphere in which terrorists operate freely.” It has taken quite some effort for Turkish forces to deal with this problem. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:42 Well, I am not going to defend Iraq. I am not going to defend Hussein. But I do have a responsibility here for us in the Congress to obey the law, and under our law, under the Constitution, and with a sense of morality, we do not go around assassinating dictators. I think history shows that we were involved in that in South Vietnam and it did not help us one bit. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:43 Syria is another close neighbor of Iraq. Syria was an ally in the Persian Gulf War. Syria would like us not to do anything. Iraqi foreign minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf went to Damascus to see Syrian President Hafez Assad, marking the first time in 18 years that the Syrian leader met with an Iraqi official. This is one of the consequences, this is one of the things that is happening. The further we push the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government, the further we push them into close alliances with the more radical elements in that region. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:46 The Iraqi and the Syrian views, according to this article, are very close and almost identical in rejecting a resort to force and American military threats. We do not get support there, and we should not ignore that. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:48 He said, “I do not think the bombing, I don’t think it will change his behavior at all. Saddam’s goal is to go down in history as the second coming of Nebuchadnezzar by uniting the Arab world against the west. He may not mind a big strike if, after it, the United Nations lifts economic sanctions against Iraq.” Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:50 Mr. Speaker, there is no indication that this bombing will accomplish what we should do. Charles Duefler, deputy chief of the U.N. Special Commission in charge of Iraqi inspection said, “Put bluntly, we do not really know what Iraq has.” Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:54 We have heard of that before. “That, in turn,” he goes on to say, “will provoke protests in parts of the Arab world, Jordan probably and Egypt as well. In both countries the United States is already considered the protector of a recalcitrant Israeli Government. As for Israel itself, it can expect that Iraq will send missiles its way armed with chemical or biological weapons.” Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:63 Why is it that we have no more concern about our national security concern about China? I think China can pose a national threat. I do not think we should be doing it to China. I do not think we should be looking to find out what kind of weapons they have. We know they sell weapons to Iraq. And we know they are a very capable nation when it comes to military. But what do we do with China? We give them foreign aid. They are one of the largest recipients of foreign aid in the whole world. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:65 We obviously knew the oil was important in the Persian Gulf War because it was said that we were going over there to protect our oil. Of course, it was Iraqi oil but some people believe sincerely that keeping this Iraqi oil off the market helps keep the prices higher and they do not need that to happen. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:66 As a matter of fact, it was in the Wall Street Journal today that that was further suggested. It said: Equally important the U.S. must terminate illegal oil exports from the Iraqi port of Basra. Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:93 I mean, most people in this country cannot even find where Iraq is on the map. I mean, they are not that concerned about it. And yet all we would have to do is have one ship go down and have loss of life and then all of a sudden, then do we turn tail? Then is it that we do not lose face after we lose 1,000 men by some accident or some freakish thing happening? Iraq Three Important Issues For America 11 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 7:106 This whole approach of militancy, believing that we can force our way on other people, will not and cannot work. Matter of fact, the few quotes that I used here earlier are indicating that we are doing precisely the wrong thing; that we are further antagonizing not only our so-called enemies, but we are further antagonizing our allies. So if there is no uniformity of opinion of the neighbors, of Iraq, that we should be doing this, if we will not listen to the moral, if we will not listen to the constitutional issue, we should listen to the practical issue. His neighbors do not want us to do it. Iraq Iraq 12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 9:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the morning papers today recorded that Russia was providing weapons technology to Iraq. We have known for years that China has done the same thing. Does this mean that we must attack them as well as Iraq? Iraq Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq 12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 11:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am not in the leadership; I do not speak for the leadership. But I do hope that I speak for a lot of people in America and other Members of Congress who may feel differently. I equally condemn the horrors going on in the country of Iraq. I have no desire at all to defend Hussein. I rise, though, to just urge some caution on what we do. Iraq The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:2 We have heard very much in the last few weeks about the possibility of a war being started in the Persian Gulf. It looks like this has at least been delayed a bit. There is a temporary victory brought about by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations in agreement with the government of Iraq. Iraq The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 15:9 There is a lot of argument against this whole principle of foreign interventionism, involvement in the internal affairs of other nations, picking leaders of other countries. We were warned rather clearly by our first President, George Washington, that it would be best that we not get involved in entangling alliances and that we instead should talk with people and be friendly with people and trade with people. Of course the first reaction would be, yes, but the person that we are dealing with as leader of Iraq is a monster and therefore we cannot trust him and we should not talk to him. There have been a lot of monsters in the world and we have not treated them all the same way. Just think of the tremendous number of deaths to the tune of millions under Pol Pot. At that time we were even an ally of his. Even the inconsistency of our policy where in the 1980s we actually encouraged Saddam Hussein. We sold him weapons. We actually had participated in the delivery of biological weapons to Hussein. At that time we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran. We closed our eyes when poison gases were used. Iraq The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:11 But it is not so much that it was the crossing of borders. I do believe that oil interests and the huge very, very important oil fields of Iraq and what it might mean to the price of oil if they came on has a whole lot to do with this. Iraq The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:13 We cannot let them get away with the repetition of “we got to get the weapons of mass destruction.” Of course. But are they mostly in Iraq? I would say we have done rather well getting rid of the weapons there. They are a much weaker nation militarily than they were 10 years ago, and those kind of weapons are around the world, so that, as far as I am concerned, is a weak argument. Iraq The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:15 But even taking it from an Israeli point of view, I do not know how they can be sure it is in their best interests to go over there and stir things up. They are more likely to be bombed with a terrorist bomb if we go in there and start bombing Iraq. If we do, Israel will not stand by as they did once before. They told us so. Iraq The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:17 Right now Iraq is on closer ties with Syria and Iran than they have been in 18 years. This is the achievement of our policy. We are driving the unity of those who really hate America, and will do almost anything. So we further expose ourselves to the threat of terrorism. So if they are attacked and they have no way to defend themselves against this great Nation of ours, they will strike out. Therefore, I think in the practical argument, we have very little to gain by pursuing this policy. Iraq The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 3 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 18:20 So even the practical arguments call for restraint and a sensible approach, for debate and negotiations. It is for this reason I think for the moment we can be pleased that Mr. Annan went to Iraq and came back with something that is at least negotiable, and that the American people will think about and talk about. Hopefully this will lead not only to peace immediately in this area, but hopefully it will lead to a full discussion about the wisdom of a foreign policy of continued perpetual interventionism and involvement in the internal affairs of other nations. Iraq Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr. 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend to my colleagues the following article by a young writher, R.C. Sproul, Jr., the son of the remarkable theologian and author. While this article is indeed instructive and important in regards to the recent situation with Iraq, I believe that the author does a fine job addressing the much broader topic of following the Constitution in all matters, including those of inciting war and promoting peace. His article was written for CovSyn, which is a publication of the Kuyper Institute, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Iraq Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr. 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 21:5 Since Vietnam U.S. soldiers have shot at soldiers from other countries, and been shot at, in Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. And it appears we’re going to non-war again in Iraq sometime soon. Where, to quote Mr. Dole, is the outrage? How is it that the Constitution can be so brazenly ignored? Iraq U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy 10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week’s Hitler is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Chong-il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming. Iraq U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy 10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:2 Once our ally, Saddam Hussein, with encouragement from us, invaded Iran. Was it not logical that he might believe that we condone border crossings and invasions even into what Iraqis believe rightfully theirs, Kuwait, especially after getting tacit approval from U.S. Ambassador Glaspie? Iraq U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy 10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 25:7 Planning any military involvement in Kosova is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion of whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq. Iraq Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina 17 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 26:6 There are certain countries, like in Rwanda, Africa, we certainly did not apply the same rules to that country as we do to Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and Iraq. We did not do this when we saw the mass killings in the Far East under Pol Pot. Iraq Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina 17 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 26:13 But at the same time we win those kind of votes, and there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home, we ought not to assume the role of world policemen, and we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies. We were very confused as to who was really in charge of foreign policy in Iraq, whether it was Kofi Annan or whether it was our President. Iraq Bombing Iraq 18 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 27:2 This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress. Iraq Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:11 Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever-increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation, investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas of Iraq not under the control of Hussein. Iraq Illegal Wars 31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 30:2 Mr. Chairman, this is a very important part of this legislation. This is not BESTEA, but it is “best part.” By far Section 3002 of this bill is the best part of this entire bill. The only thing I would like to add is that the money being spent in Bosnia and Iraq, $1.8 billion, should not be spent there either, because I am frightened that we will put our men in harm’s way and then a situation will occur, and it will be virtually impossible for the Congress to turn down acceleration and amplification of the conflict over there. Iraq Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:2 One of the truly positive aspects of H.R. 3579 is Sec. 3002 stating that “none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This language is virtually identical to H.R. 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq. Iraq Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 31 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 31:6 There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of ‘policemen of the world,’ offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States. Iraq Iraq — Part 1 5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:4 For instance, at the beginning of this legislation it is cited as one of the reasons why we must do something. It says on September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran starting an 8-year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, very serious problems. We should condemn that. But the whole problem is we were Iraq’s ally at that time, giving him military assistance, giving him funds and giving him technology for chemical weapons. Iraq Iraq — Part 1 5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:9 Another complaint listed on this legislation: in February 1988 Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their homes. Terrible thing to do, and they probably did; there is no doubt about it. But what did we do after the Persian Gulf war? We encouraged the Kurdish people to stand up and fight against Saddam Hussein, and they did, and we forgot about them, and they were killed by the tens of thousands. There is no reason for them to trust us. There is no reason for the Sudanese people to believe and trust in us, in what we do when we rain bombs on their country and they have done nothing to the United States. The people of Iraq certainly have not done anything to the United States, and we certainly can find leaders around the world that have not done equally bad things. I think we should stop and think about this. Iraq Iraq — Part 1 5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 107:15 As my colleagues know, at the end of this bill I think we get a hint as to why we do not go to Rwanda for humanitarian reasons. Now there is some atrocities. Why do we not clean that mess up? Because I believe very sincerely that there is another element tied into this, and I think it has something to do with money, and I think it has something to do with oil. The oil interests need the oil in Iraq, and he does not, Saddam Hussein does not, comply with the people of the west. So he has to go. Iraq Iraq — Part 2 5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 108:5 But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. Iraq Iraq — Part 2 5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 108:10 We can hardly be sympathetic to the Kurds who are being punished by the Iraqis at the same time we are paying the Turks to do the same thing to the Kurds. So there is something awful inconsistent about this. Iraq Iraq — Part 3 5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 109:9 Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not think it is proper for us to offer those people who are struggling for freedoms in Iraq against their dictatorship a helping hand? Iraq Iraq — Part 3 5 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 109:13 I think the conclusions we have today are logical. I do not think they lack logic. I think that if one decides that we are fighting for our national security reasons, we never stop short of victory. So this would go along with the gentleman’s argument that we stopped too soon in Iraq. But we were not there for national security reasons. They were not about to invade us, and they are not about to invade us. The only way we should fear an invasion by these hoodlums is if we incite them to terrorism. Iraq Resolution On Saddam Hussein 17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:10 One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront to our nation’s sovereignty and our constitution that the President presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United States Congress. Iraq Resolution On Saddam Hussein 17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:12 Next, we ought to consider the morality of the means which must be employed to change the government of Iraq. Yesterday I sat on a panel with Harry Summers, a man of considerable military knowledge. Summers stated that it would take ground troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Moreover, he unequivocally stated that military history shows that no war has ever been won simply via air strikes. This statement is not only factually accurate, it is also a stark reminder of what the price of this policy will be. Namely, the price of successfully changing the government of Iraq is the blood of many thousands of innocent human beings. And, lest we fool ourselves, many of these people will be American troops, brave young men and women who patriotically agreed to defend the United States but have now been placed like pawns in a chess game, perhaps to remove the leader of Iraq, or perhaps to stave off the removal of the US President. At any rate, these brave young Americans ought not be sacrificed for either of these improper political purposes. Iraq Resolution On Saddam Hussein 17 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 124:13 Finally, even by the amoral measure of “realpolitik” the policy of Saddam’s removal is unwarranted. The reason that the US has hesitated to actually complete successful enactment of its stated policy is because the result of such enactment is fraught with uncertainty. Iraq is a country made up of many different factions. And many of its neighbors are interested in increasing their influence and control over areas which are now within Iraqi territory. Hence, if Saddam ever were to be removed by force of US efforts, we would face a very real risk to regional stability. Stability being the key concern of those who practice “realpolitik” this points to the fact that by the measures established by the “pragmatists” the stated policy of Saddam’s removal is wrongful. Let me be clear, while I reject the notion of divorcing politics from moral considerations, I do believe we should understand that our current policy is not only devoid of morals, but is also doomed to failure from any practical viewpoint. Iraq Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:22 It’s sad but there is another example of a most egregious abuse of presidential power, committed by the President, that has gotten no attention by the special prosecutors or the Congress. That is the attempt by the President to distract from the Monica Lewinsky testimony to the Grand Jury by bombing with cruise missiles both Sudan and Afghanistan, and the now current war against Iraq. Iraq Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:23 Two hundred million dollars were spent on an illegal act of war against innocent people. The pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was just that, a pharmaceutical plant, owned by a Muslim businessman who was standing up to the Islamic fundamentalists, the same people we pretend to oppose and use as scapegoats for all our Middle-Eastern policies. And now we have the controversial and unconstitutional waging of war in Iraq. Iraq How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices? 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow colleagues, how long will the war go on before Congress notices? We have been bombing and occupying Iraq since 1991, longer the occupation of Japan after World War II. Iraq has never committed aggression against the United States. Iraq How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices? 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:2 The recent escalation of bombing in Iraq has caused civilian casualties to mount. The Clinton administration claims U.N. resolution 687, passed in 1991, gives him the legal authority to continue this war. We have perpetuated hostilities and sanctions for more than 8 years on a country that has never threatened our security, and the legal justification comes from not the U.S. Congress, as the Constitution demands, but from a clearly unconstitutional authority, the United Nations. Iraq How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices? 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:6 The constitution has been blatantly ignored by the President while Congress has acquiesced in endorsing the 8-year war against Iraq. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has done nothing to keep our presidents from policing the world, spending billions of dollars, killing many innocent people, and jeopardizing the very troops that should be defending America. Iraq How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices? 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:8 Our foolish policy in Iraq invites terrorist attacks against U.S. territory and incites the Islamic fundamentalists against us. As a consequence, our efforts to develop long-term peaceful relations with Russia are now ending. This policy cannot enhance world peace. But instead of changing it, the President is about to expand it in another no-win centuries-old fight in Kosovo. Iraq Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:7 Recent flagrant abuse of the power to wage war by modern-day Presidents, including the most recent episodes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, should prompt this Congress to revisit this entire issue of war powers. Certain abuses of power are obviously more injurious than others. The use of the FBI and the IRS to illegally monitor and intimidate citizens is a power that should be easy to condemn, and yet it continues to thrive. The illegal and immoral power to create money out of thin air for the purpose of financing a welfare-warfare state serving certain financial interests while causing the harmful business cycle is a process that most in Washington do not understand nor care about. These are ominous powers of great magnitude that were never meant to be permitted under the Constitution. Iraq Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:8 But as bad as these abuses are, the power of a single person, the President, to wage war is the most egregious of all presidential powers, and Congress deserves the blame for allowing such power to gravitate into the hands of the President. The fact that nary a complaint was made in Congress for the recent aggressive military behavior of our President in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with national security should not be ignored. Instead, Congress unwisely and quickly rubber stamped this military operation. We should analyze this closely and decide whether or not we in the Congress should promote a war powers policy that conforms to the Constitution or continue to allow our Presidents ever greater leverage to wage war any time, any place and for any reason. Iraq Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:12 Not only did we suffer greatly from the unwise and illegal Korean and Vietnam wars, Congress has allowed a continuous abuse of military power by our Presidents in an ever increasing frequency. We have seen troops needlessly die in Lebanon, Grenada, invaded for questionable reasons, Libya bombed with innocent civilians killed, persistent naval operations in the Persian Gulf, Panama invaded, Iraq bombed on numerous occasions, Somalia invaded, a secret and illegal war fought in Nicaragua, Haiti occupied, and troops stationed in Bosnia and now possibly soon in Kosovo. Iraq Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:14 Without an actual declaration of war and support from the American people, victory is unachievable. This has been the case with the ongoing war against Iraq. Without a legitimate concern for our national security, the willingness to declare war and achieve victory is difficult. The war effort becomes narrowly political, serving special interests, and not fought for the defense of the United States against a serious military threat. If we can win a Cold War against the Soviets, we hardly need a hot war with a third world nation, unable to defend itself, Iraq. Iraq President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops 9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:4 We have been bombing and interfering with the security of Iraq for now over 8 years, and that continues, and we do not give Congressional approval of these acts. My legislation is simple. It just denies funding for sending troops into Kosovo without Congressional approval. Iraq President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops 9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:6 It would be much better for us to spend this money that is being wasted in Bosnia and Iraq on our national defense. We spend less and less money every year on national defense but we spend more and more money on policing the world. I think that policy ought to change and it is the responsibility of the Congress, the body that has control of the purse strings, to do something about this. Iraq Introducing Legislation To Prevent Expansion Of American Military Intervention Without Congressional Approval 11 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 6:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, we have troops in 144 countries of the world today. President Clinton has announced that he will now send troops to Kosovo. We are bombing in Iraq on a daily basis. We have been in Bosnia now for three years, although we were supposed to be there for six months. We should not go into Kosovo; we should not go there, absolutely, without congressional approval. Iraq President Has No Authority To Wage War Without Congressional Approval 24 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 8:3 For 9 years, bombing Iraq and killing innocent Iraqi children with sanctions has done nothing to restore stability to Iraq, but it has served to instill an ever-growing hatred toward America. It is now clear that the threats of massive bombing of Serbia have not brought peace to Kosovo. Iraq War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress 9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:2 We, the Congress, have been informed through a public statement by the President that troops will be sent. We have not been asked to act in a constitutional fashion to grant the President permission to act. He is not coming to us to fully explain his intentions. The President is making a public statement as to his intentions and we are expected to acquiesce, to go along with the funding, and not even debate the issue, just as we are doing in Iraq. Iraq War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress 9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:3 That is not a proper constitutional procedure and it should be condemned. Silence in the past, while accommodating our Presidents in all forms of foreign adventurism from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Bosnia, should not be the standard the Congress follows. Iraq War Powers Resolution 17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:9 Our policy, whether it is with Iraq or Serbia, of demanding that if certain actions are not forthcoming, we will unleash massive bombing attacks on them, I find reprehensible, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional. We are seen as a world bully, and a growing anti-American hatred is the result. This policy cannot contribute to long-term peace. Political instability will result and innocent people will suffer. The billions we have spent bombing Iraq, along with sanctions, have solidified Saddam Hussein’s power, while causing the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Our policy in Kosovo will be no more fruitful. Iraq Closer To Empire 25 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 24:2 Our involvement in Kosovo and in Iraq, and in Bosnia — when combined with America’s role in Korea, and in the Middle East and other places around the world, is now lurching our republic ever closer to empire. Empire is something that all Americans ought to oppose. Iraq U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:12 How many refugees, how many children’s death has U.S. policy caused by our embargo and bombing for 9 years of a defenseless poverty-ridden Iraq. Just as our bombs in Iraq have caused untold misery and death, so have our bombs in Serbia killed the innocent on both sides, solidified support for the ruthless leaders, and spread the war. Iraq U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:20 Instead of being lucky enough on occasions to pick the right side of a conflict, we instead end up supporting both sides of nearly every conflict. In the 1980s, we helped arm, and allied ourselves with, the Iraqis against Iran. Also in the 1980s we supported the Afghan freedom fighters, which included Osama Bin Laden. Even in the current crisis in Yugoslavia, we have found ourselves on both sides. Iraq U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:60 Appropriating funds to pursue this war is not the way to peace. We have been bombing, boycotting and killing thousands in Iraq for 9 years with no end in sight. We have been in Bosnia for 3 years, with no end in sight. And once Congress endorses the war in Yugoslavia with funding, it could take a decade, billions of dollars, and much suffering on both sides, before we put it to an end. Iraq Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:8 Number five. An economic embargo is now being instituted to starve children and prevent medications from reaching the sick, just as we have been doing for a decade against Iraq. Iraq More Money For War Not The Answer 6 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 42:6 But if we are in a quagmire, if we are following a policy that is unwise, the money might just make conditions much worse. I think this is why we must defeat the spending on this program, because the problems with what is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq will be compounded as long as the administration has the money to fund the war. Iraq No Billions In Appropriations Can Make Our Foreign Policy Effective 13 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 46:9 Thus or contortions and distortions that have led to dilemmas in our thoughts and dilemmas in our policy have led also to real paradoxes. Because our policy of globaloney is so bad, so unprincipled and so bound up with the notions of interventionism, we now face this strange truth: we ought to spend less on our military but we should spend more on defense. Our troops are underpaid, untertrained and poorly outfitted for the tasks we have given them. We are vulnerable to missile attack, and how do we spend our constituents money? What priorities have we set in this body? We vote to purchase a few more bombs to drop over Serbia or Iraq. Iraq Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:8 The U.S. has become the world’s bully. In recent months we have bombed Serbia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and China; and in recent years, many others. Iraq What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag 22 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 63:7 Mr. Speaker, my point is obviously that why do we want to emulate them? There are other countries around the world that have similar laws: Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Sudan; they all have laws against desecration of the flag. But in this country we have not had this. We have never put it in the Constitution. This debate would dumbfound our Founders to think that we were contemplating such an amendment to the Constitution. Iraq On The United Nations And Embassy Security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 78:7 I object to imposing our will on other people. I believe this is what we so often do. When we do that, we build hatreds around the world. That is why our embassies are less secure than many other nations. This is why we are bombed. We bomb Iraq endlessly. No wonder they hate us. Iraq Free Trade 27 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 82:10 Every argument today for trading with China is an argument for removing all sanctions with all nations including Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq. None of these nations come close to being a threat to our national sovereignty. If trade with China is to help us commercially and help the cause of peace, so too would trade with all countries. Iraq U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life 17 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 115:4 Our foreign policy of military interventionism has brought us death and destruction to many foreign lands and loss of life for many Americans. From Korea and Vietnam to Serbia, Iran, Iraq and now Afghanistan, we have ventured far from our shores in search of wars to fight. Instead of more free trade with our potential adversaries, we are quick to slap on sanctions that hurt American exports and help to solidify the power of the tyrants, while seriously penalizing innocent civilians in fomenting anti-America hatred. Iraq U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life 17 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 115:9 I see this as a particularly dangerous time for a U.S. president to be traveling to this troubled region, since so many blame us for the suffering, whether it is the innocent victims in Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is hard for the average citizen of these countries to understand why we must be so involved in their affairs, and resort so readily to bombing and boycotts in countries thousands of miles away from our own. Iraq A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:4 Our Presidents have assured us that U.N. authorization is all that is needed to send our troops into battle. The 1973 War Powers Resolution meant to restrict presidential war powers has either been ignored by our Presidents or used to justify war up to 90 days. The Congress and the people too often have chosen to ignore this problem, saying little about the recent bombing in Serbia. The continual bombing of Iraq which has now been going on for over 9 years is virtually ignored. Iraq WHAT IS FREE TRADE? May 2, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 29:43 So I think this is important material. I think this is an important subject, a lot more important than just the vote to trade with China. I think we should trade with China. I think we should trade with Cuba. I think we should trade with everybody possible, unless we are at war with them. I do not think we should have sanctions against Iran, Iraq or Libya, and it does not make much sense to me to be struggling and fighting and giving more foreign aid to a country like China, and at the same time we have sanctions on and refuse to trade and talk with Cuba. That does not make a whole lot of sense. Yet those who believe and promote trade with China are the ones who will be strongly objecting to trade with Cuba and these other countries. So I think a little bit more consistency on this might be better for all of us. Iraq CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:88 US policy over the past 50 years has led to endless illegal military interventions, from Korea to our ongoing war with Iraq and military occupations in the Balkans. Many Americans have died and many others have been wounded or injured or have been forgotten. Numerous innocent victims living in foreign lands have died, as well, from the bombing and blockades we have imposed. They have been people with whom we have had no fight but who were trapped between the bad policy of their own leaders and our eagerness to demonstrate our prowess to the world. Over 500,000 Iraqi children have reportedly died as a consequence of our bombing and denying food and medicine by our embargo. Iraq CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:106 We continue to support Turkey with dollars and weapons. We once supported Iraq with the same. Now we permit Turkey, armed with American weapons, to kill Kurds in Iraq, while we bomb the Iraqis if they do the same. It makes no sense. Iraq POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:13 U.S. policy over the past 50 years has led to endless illegal military interventions, from Korea to our ongoing war with Iraq and military occupation in the Balkans. Many Americans have died and many others have been wounded or injured or have just simply been forgotten. Iraq POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:14 Numerous innocent victims living in foreign lands have died as well from the bombings and the blockades we have imposed. They have been people with whom we have had no fight but who were trapped between the bad policy of their own leaders and our eagerness to demonstrate our prowess in the world. Over 500,000 Iraqi children have reportedly died as a consequence of our bombing and denying food and medicine by our embargo. Iraq POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:38 We continue to support Turkey with dollars and weapons. We once supported Iraq with the same. Now, we permit Turkey, armed with American weapons, to kill Kurds in Iraq, while we bomb the Iraqis if they do the same. It makes no sense. Iraq Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:3 2 . Since World War II, each of our Presidents have engaged in wars — both big and small, from Korea to the continued bombing of Iraq — without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. Yet, the Constitution clearly vests the decision to go to war (as opposed to its execution by the commander-in chief, once declared), with the Congress. If, however, the “war decision” is allowed to come from Presidential directives or UN resolutions, of what value to the American people is the Constitutional constraint upon a President who would otherwise wage war without Congressional approval? Do you believe the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional? If so, why? If not, why not? Iraq Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:5 4. Why do we trade and subsidize a country like China, pursue talks with Iran and North Korea, and act as a conduit for peace in the Middle East while all we seem to know what to do with Iraq is bomb, kill, and impose sanctions? Surely we are not expected to believe Saddam Hussein is the only totalitarian in power today? Iraq Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:6 5. Is not the continued bombing of Iraq an act of war? Where does the administration get its authority to pursue this war? Is this policy not in violation of our Constitution that says only Congress can declare war? There is not even a UN resolution calling for the US-British imposed no-fly zone over Iraq. Our allies have almost all deserted us on our policy toward Iraq. Is it not time to talk to the Iraqis? We talked to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, surely we can do the same with Iraq today. We trade with and subsidize China and we talk to the Iranians, surely we can trade with Iraq . . . ? Iraq Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:8 7. How would you, the U.S. government, and the American people respond if a foreign power subsidized subversive groups whose goal it was to overthrow our government as we are doing with the Iraqi National Congress? Iraq Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations 18 July 2001    2001 Ron Paul 57:9 We did not bring peace by 78 days of bombing. As matter of fact, most of the death and destruction and hostility toward America was developed during those 78 days. It did not occur prior to that. There were few deaths in comparison. And who were the people killed with our bombs dropping from 30,000 feet? Were they military people? No. Innocent people, as they are in Iraq as well. Iraq LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL July 26, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 66:5 * I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies. Iraq LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL July 26, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 66:6 * Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation’s farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these ares. The department of Agriculture estimates that Iraq alone represents a $1 billion market for American farm goods. Given our status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors. Iraq LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL July 26, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 66:8 * I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. For example, 10 years of trade sanctions against Iraq, not to mention aggressive air patrols and even bombings, have not ended Saddam Hussein’s rule. If anything, the political situation has worsened, while the threat to Kuwait remains. The sanctions have, however, created suffering due to critical shortages of food and medicine among the mostly poor inhabitants of Iraq. So while the economic benefits of trade are an important argument against sanctions, we must also consider the humanitarian argument. Our sanctions policies undermine America’s position as a humane nation, bolstering the common criticism that we are a bully with no respect for people outside our borders. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately. Iraq Foreign Interventionism September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:15 When the conflict broke out between Iraq and Iran in the early 1980s and we helped to finance and arm Iraq, Anwar Sadat of Egypt profoundly stated: “This is the beginning of the war for oil.” Our crisis today is part of this long lasting war over oil. Iraq Foreign Interventionism September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:19 Of course, it isn’t our oil. The oil in fact belongs to the Arabs and other Muslim nations of the Persian Gulf. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is what most Muslims believe to be a sacred violation of holy land. The continuous bombing and embargo of Iraq, has intensified the hatred and contributed to more than over 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq. It is clear that protecting certain oil interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf help drive the holy war. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:19 The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, made it clear: “We are going to continue pursuing the entire al Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan.” Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us to take on Iraq. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:20 The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction. However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that have similar weapons or plans to build them- countries like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World Order and remains independent of western control of its oil reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate against him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred toward the United States, and it’s all so unnecessary. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:22 In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: “We have heard that a half million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq). Is the price worth it?” Albright’s response was “We think the price is worth it.” Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why America is despised in this region of the world! Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:23 Former President George W. Bush has been criticized for not marching on to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then, and stands by his explanation today, a superb answer of why it was ill-advised to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power — there were strategic and tactical, as well as humanitarian, arguments against it. But the important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was political. The coalition, in no uncertain terms, let it be known they wanted no part of it. Besides, the UN only authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The UN has never sanctioned the continued U.S. and British bombing of Iraq — a source of much hatred directed toward the United States. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:26 It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi attack. Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were “our” oil supplies. Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:27 Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well please some allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:28 It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein- that is the job of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban- that is the business of the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the next government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an idea it is. If this really is an issue, why don’t we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose our will on them? Talk about hypocrisy! The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, should insult us all. Of course it does distract us from the issue of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on the target and not be so easily distracted. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:31 Remember, to bin Laden, martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be more powerful in death than he is in life. An American invasion of Iraq would please bin Laden, because it would rally his troops against any moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the United States. It would prove his point that America is up to no good, that oil and Arab infidels are the source of all the Muslims’ problems. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:34 Let’s hope for all our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this complex war. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:35 The President, in the 2000 presidential campaign, argued against nation building, and he was right to do so. He also said, “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us.” He wisely argued for humility and a policy that promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or declaring war against Saddam Hussein, or even continuing the illegal bombing of Iraq, is hardly a policy of humility designed to promote peace. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:37 Rumsfeld’s plan, as reported in Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper, lays out the plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkey’s support is crucial, so the plan is to give Turkey oil from the northern Iraq Karkuk field. The United States has also promised a pipeline running from Iraq through Turkey. How can the Turks resist such a generous offer? Since we subsidize Turkey and they bomb the Kurds, while we punish the Iraqis for the same, this plan to divvy up wealth in the land of the Kurds is hardly a surprise. Iraq The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:41 One commentator pointed out that when the mafia commits violence, no one suggests we bomb Sicily. Today it seems we are, in a symbolic way, not only bombing “Sicily,” but are thinking about bombing “Athens” (Iraq). Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:2 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to start off by thanking the chairman for having made some changes in this bill. The bill is not nearly as bad as it was at the beginning. However, I obviously cannot support it. But changing the tone was helpful in talking about Saddam Hussein versus Iraq, “Iraq” suggesting the people of Iraq, who are hardly enemies of the American people. Saddam Hussein is a different subject. Also changing the word “aggression” to “a mounting threat.” Aggression means that we have to immediately retaliate, I would suppose. Even “a mounting threat” is a bit threatening to me, but at least it is better and moving in the direction of less confrontation with a nation 6,000 miles from our shore that I hardly see as a threat to our national security. Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:5 Take, for instance, one of the whereas’s in this resolution. “Whereas the Iraq attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran.” We keep hearing this all the time. It was horrible. But they were our allies at the time. We were financing them, giving them money, helping them with technology. Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:8 We criticize the possibility or suggest the possibility of what might be happening in Iraq, and, out of frustration, this amendment came up because there has been no evidence that Iraq is connected. Not that Saddam Hussein can be construed as any type of a good guy, but there has been no connection, so there had to be some new reason given to go into Iraq. Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:9 I tend to agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman HYDE) that if there was evidence, we probably have, under the authority we have given the President, to go in to Iraq. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the perpetuation, the continuation of the Persian Gulf War, which at the time was designed as a fight for our oil. I think that is what this is all about. Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:10 Its been suggested that the anthrax came from Iraq. The mounting evidence today, sadly, suggests that it may well be coming from our CIA. Here we are almost ready to go to war against Iraq at the suggestion that our carelessness and our development of anthrax here in this country may have been a contributing factor to this anthrax being spread in this country. Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:11 It is suggested that it will be easy to overtake Iraq because we have had this tremendous success in Afghanistan, and we will have this uprising and the Kurds will be a reliable ally in this uprising. The plain truth is, the Kurds will not be the salvation of our securing Iraq. As a matter of fact, most of our allies, the Turks, although they may be bought and allow us to use their bases, they are very nervous about this plan to invade Iraq. Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:12 The whole idea that Iraq is the one that we have to be addressing, when you look at the problems throughout the world, when you look at what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has not cooperated, and yet we have troops on their soil antagonizing the people over there, and at the same time, people are saying that all we have to do is invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein, and everything is going to be okay. Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:14 As a matter of fact, if you want to go into Iraq and follow the rules and you are pretending you are following the rules, you ought to do a couple of things. If you believe in the United Nations, you have to go back to the United Nations, if you believe in the rule of law. Also you have to answer the question, why does this resolution need to be enforced versus other resolutions that have never been enforced? Why is it assumed that the United States has to enforce UN resolutions? When did it come to the point where the UN dictates foreign policy to us? Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:15 So, there are a lot of questions to answer about this desire to immediately go into Iraq. I think it actually poses a threat to our security, more than it helps us. So I am suggesting that we go more cautiously. Iraq Saddam Hussein 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 107:16 I am glad this resolution has been toned down a little bit, but it does represent those individuals who think that we should be at war with Iraq today, and I disagree with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Iraq Yes, IAEA Inspected Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 108:2 It has been said that there have been no inspections in Iraq; and yet the International Atomic Energy Agency was in Iraq this very year and this was the report: I am pleased to confirm that between 20 and 23 January 2001, a 4-person IAEA team carried out a physical inventory verification of the declared nuclear material remaining in Iraq under IAEA seal. For its part, Iraq provided the necessary cooperation for the inspection team to perform its activities effectively and efficiently. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. MCDERMOTT). Iraq Yields Time To Mr. Rohrabacher 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 109:3 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman was to find out that China was much more involved in the Taliban and the terrorist attacks on 9–11 than anything Saddam Hussein has done, would the gentleman be willing to do to China what the gentleman is willing to do to Iraq? Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me put it this way. The answer is yes, but I would not right away. Like the President says, we must do things sequentially, and we must be absolutely committed to the job. If we do things sequentially, the next order of business is taking care of the threat in Iraq. And if China is, yes, helping terrorists murder thousands of Americans, yes, we should help the Chinese people overthrow their dictatorship as well. Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:2 Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in this H.J. resolution is that resolutions have been passed, and one in particular, a U.N. resolution against Iraq, must be enforced. I made the point earlier that there are many resolutions that are not enforced, so this one is special and has to be enforced; and the assumption is that it is the responsibility of the United States to do the enforcing. Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:4 There is no U.N. authority for us to use force against Saddam Hussein without a new U.N. resolution. It would be very difficult to legally mount another invasion of Iraq right now without a U.N. resolution. It would not go along with UN rules. Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:5 The other question I have about the rule of law and trying to follow the rules of the United Nations would be: Where have we gotten the authority to enforce the no-fly zones? The no-fly zones are really a contention in the Middle East, and have been a contention for a long time, because that, in combination with the embargoes and the sanctions against the Iraqi people is what the Arabs believe to be so detrimental to the children who have died in Iraq. Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:6 Whether Members agree with that or not, or they want to put all the blame on Saddam Hussein, is beside the point. Millions if not billions of Muslims and Iraqis happen to wonder about that policy: Where did we get the authority to continue bombing for now going on 12 years? Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:7 This legislation says that we know exactly what is going on in Iraq. I pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency has been in Iraq this year and found out that there is no evidence of nuclear weapons being built. Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:8 But there is one gentleman who has been in Iraq many times under the U.N., as a U.N. inspector, Scott Ritter. He has been there 30 times. Probably even the best junketeer in Congress I will bet has not been over there 30 times, but he has been there 30 times inspecting. Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:9 He was on a television interview the other day, and had an opinion as to what is going on in Iraq. I do not think Members can jump up and say Scott Ritter is not a true American, that he is not a true internationalist, that he does not know what he is talking about. But this is what he said on television when they asked about whether or not he thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq was a threat to our national security. Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:10 He said, “In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. His military was devastated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm, and Iraq has not had the ability to reconstitute itself in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We know that we achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam is a little bit of a threat. In terms of a real national security threat to the United States, no, none.” Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:13 Quite frankly, I think there is a better diplomatic way to handle things. I think it is a shame that our Secretary of State has not been given more authority to have his way on this issue, rather than being overruled by those and encouraged by many Members here in the Congress who want to prepare for war against Iraq, because of this fantastic success in Afghanistan, a country, probably the poorest country in the world that did not even have an airplane; and now, because of this tremendous success, we are ready to take on the next country. Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:14 But one thing that we have to realize is that there is a great chance, and there is some evidence, and I may get a chance to quote this later, that China may well have been involved. Now, the gentleman from California said, OK, so let us go after China. Everyone knows we are not going to go after China in the same manner we are planning to go after Iraq. Iraq Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 110:15 We are going into Iraq for other reasons, other than reasons of national security. That is my firm belief. It has a lot to do with the announcement when our government propagandized to go to war in the Persian Gulf War and it was to go to defend our oil. I still believe that is a major motivation that directs our foreign policy in the Middle East. Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:5 Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75 — the resolution clause stating that by not obeying a U.N. resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been committing an “act of aggression” against the United States — what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: finding bringing to justice those who attacked the United Stats on September 11, 2001. Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:6 Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq’s government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East — many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, “I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, ‘let’s go bomb.’ ” Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:7 Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after the terrorist attack, states that, “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen “evidence” of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for example, the “smoking gun” of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that “the Prague meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq.” The Times goes on to suggest that the “Mohamad Atta” who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe’s Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United Stats — a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former CIA director James Woolsey — have, with the revelation that the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts. Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:8 Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn’t matter whether Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN chief Arms Inspector Scott Ritter — who lead some 30 inspection missions to Iraq — come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O’Reilly about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief Inspector Ritter said, “In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing . . . Diplomatically, politically, Saddam’s a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, no, none.” Mr. Speaker, shouldn’t we even stop for a moment to consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further down the road toward military confrontation? Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:9 The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some 20 years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait more than 10 years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in the New York times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had no interest in Arab-Arab disputes. Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:10 We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of our European allies — critical in maintaining this coalition — have explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was “completely united” in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian President Valdimir Putin cautioned recently against American military action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for Iraq, the Russian president said. “. . . so far I have no confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we are fighting against.” Relations with our European allies would suffer should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq. Iraq 19 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 111:11 Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the attack, but a certain backlash from all gulf and Arab states could well produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the coalition that, “If we want to keep consensus . . . we should not resort, after Afghanistan, to military means.” Iraq The Case For Defending America 24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:36 Fortunately, due to the many probable repercussions, a swift attack on Iraq now seems unlikely. Our surrogate army, organized by the Iraqi National Congress, is now known to be a charade, prompting our administration to correctly stop all funding of this organization. The thought of relying on the Kurds to help remove Hussein defies logic, as the U.S.-funded Turkish army continues its war on the Kurds. There is just no coalition in the Persian Gulf to take on Iraq and, fortunately, our Secretary of State knows it. Iraq The Case For Defending America 24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:38 Since Iraq is now less likely to be hit, it looks like another poverty-ridden rudderless nation, possibly Somalia, will be the next target. No good can come of this process. It will provide more fodder for the radicals’ claim that the war is about America against Islam. Somalia poses no threat to the United States, but bombing Somalia, as we have Afghanistan and Iraq for 12 years, will only incite more hatred towards the United States and increase the odds of our someday getting hit again by some frustrated, vengeful, radicalized Muslim. Iraq The Case For Defending America 24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:41 Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is a controversial figure, to say the least, due to his close relationship with the oil industry and previously with the Taliban. His appointment to the National Security Council, very conveniently, did not require confirmation by the Senate. Khalilzad also is a close ally of the Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in promoting early and swift military action against Iraq. Iraq The Case For Defending America 24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:45 An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the United States is a more likely possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri is optimistically working on bringing those two nations together in a military alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we attacked Iraq. The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war as a step in that direction. Iraq The Case For Defending America 24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:55 How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. taxpayers’ money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes, not to mention the persistent 12 years of bombing Iraq? Iraq Stimulating The Economy February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:56 2. Another danger is that the administration may take it upon itself to broadly and incorrectly interpret House Joint Resolution 64- the resolution granting authority to the President to use force to retaliate against only “those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” Congress did not authorize force against all terrorist attacks throughout the world if the individuals involved were not directly involved in the 9-11 attacks. It would be incorrect and dangerous to use this authority to suppress uprisings throughout the world. This authority cannot be used to initiate an all-out attack on Iraq or any other nation we might find displeasing but that did not participate in the 9-11 attacks. Iraq Stimulating The Economy February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:59 5. Our pervasive military presence may well encourage alliances that would have been unheard of a few years ago. Now that we’ve committed ourselves internationally to destroying Afghanistan and rebuilding it, with a promise that we’ll be there for a long time, might encourage closer military alliances between Russia and China, and even others like Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia- countries all nervous about our military permanency in this region. Control of Caspian Sea oil is not a forgotten item for these countries, and it will not be gracefully conceded to U.S. oil interests. If these alliances develop, even U.S. control of Persian Gulf oil could be challenged as well. Iraq Stimulating The Economy February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:60 6. Limits exist on how extensive our foreign commitments should be. We have our military limits. It’s difficult to be everyplace at one time, especially if significant hostilities break out in more than one place. For instance, if we were to commit massive troops to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran were to decide to help Iraq, and at the same time the North Koreans were to decide to make a move, our capacity to wage war in both places would be limited. Already we’re short of bombs from the current Afghanistan war. We had to quit flying sorties over our own cities due to cost, while depending on NATO planes to provide us AWACs cover over U.S. territory. In addition, our financial resources are not unlimited, and any significant change in the value of the dollar, as well as our rapidly growing deficits, could play a significant role in our ability to pay our bills. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:1 The war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all we know, already initiated, for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam Hussein. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:2 There’s been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare, arming domestic rebels, killing Hussein, and even an outright invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of US troops. All we hear about in the biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard for how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraq “problem” much worse. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:6 The pro and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually is are legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:7 Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:8 Iraq’s defense of her homeland can hardly be characterized as aggression against those who rain bombs down on them. We had to go over 6,000 miles to pick this fight against a third-world nation with little ability to defend itself. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:9 Our policies have actually served to generate support for Saddam Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraq people. He is as strong today- if not stronger- as he was prior to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:10 Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer alliance between Iraq and Iran, two long-time bitter enemies. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:11 While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers’ goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:14 Although bits and pieces of the administration’s plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are discussed, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair’s approval is more important than the approval of the American people! Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:16 Let it be clearly understood- there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War. HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember that a covert war is no more justifiable, and is even more reprehensible. Iraq Before We Bomb Iraq... February 26, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 9:17 Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. Iraq Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia March 6, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 14:6 As with much of our interventionism, if you scratch the surface of the high-sounding calls to “protect democracy” and “stop drug trafficking” you often find commercial interests driving U.S. foreign policy. This also appears to be the case in Colombia. And like Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, and elsewhere, that commercial interest appears to be related to oil. The U.S. administration request for FY 2003 includes a request for an additional $98 million to help protect the Cano-Limon Pipeline- jointly owned by the Colombian government and Occidental Petroleum. Rebels have been blowing up parts of the pipeline and the resulting disruption of the flow of oil is costing Occidental Petroleum and the Colombian government more than half a billion dollars per year. Now the administration wants American taxpayers to finance the equipping and training of a security force to protect the pipeline, which much of the training coming from the U.S. military. Since when is it the responsibility of American citizens to subsidize risky investments made by private companies in foreign countries? And since when is it the duty of American service men and women to lay their lives on the line for these commercial interests? Iraq Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:1 I was recently asked why I thought it was a bad idea for the President to initiate a war against Iraq. I responded by saying that I could easily give a half a dozen reasons why; and if I took a minute, I could give a full dozen. For starters, here is a half a dozen. Iraq Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:2 Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution. Iraq Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:3 Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden third world nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security. Iraq Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:4 Number three, a war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative. Iraq Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:5 Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese, and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair’s prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran. Iraq Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:6 Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous. Iraq Do Not Initiate War On Iraq March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 19:7 Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibitive. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored. Already we hear cries for resurrecting the authoritarian program of constriction in the name of patriotism, of course. Iraq America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East April 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 21:12 Ironically, the biggest frustration in Washington, for those who eagerly resort to war to resolve differences, is that the violence in the Middle East has delayed plans for starting another war against Iraq. Iraq Predictions 24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 25:10 The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I call my colleagues’ attention to a recent article by Scott Ritter, former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, published in the Los Angeles Times. In this article, Mr. Ritter makes a salient point that deserves careful and serious consideration in this body: how will it be possible to achieve the stated administration goal of getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq when the administration has made it known that it intends to assassinate the Iraqi leader? Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:2 If nothing else, Saddam Hussein has proven himself a survivor. Does anyone believe that he will allow inspectors back into his country knowing that any one of them might kill him? Is it the intention of the administration to get inspectors back into Iraq and thus answers to lingering and critical questions regarding Iraq’s military capabilities, or is the intent to invade that country regardless of the near total absence of information and actually make it impossible for Suddam Hussein to accept the inspectors? Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:3 Mr. Ritter, who as former chief UN inspector in Iraq probably knows that country better than any of us here, made some excellent points in a recent meeting with Republican members of Congress. According to Mr. Ritter, no American-installed regime could survive in Iraq. Interestingly, Mr. Ritter noted that though his rule is no doubt despotic, Saddam Hussein has been harsher toward Islamic fundamentalism than any other Arab regime. He added that any U.S. invasion to remove Saddam from power would likely open the door to an anti-American fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq. That can hardly be viewed in a positive light here in the United States. Is a policy that replaces a bad regime with a worse regime the wisest course to follow? Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:4 Much is made of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, as a potential post-invasion leader of Iraq. Mr. Ritter told me that in his many dealings with Chalabi, he found him to be completely unreliable and untrustworthy. He added that neither he nor the approximately 100 Iraqi generals that the US is courting have any credibility inside Iraq, and any attempt to place them in power would be rejected in the strongest manner by the Iraqi people. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American military personnel would be required to occupy Iraq indefinitely if any American-installed regime is to remain in power. Again, it appears we are creating a larger problem than we are attempting to solve. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:5 Similarly, proponents of a US invasion of Iraq often cite the Kurds in the northern part of that country as a Northern Alliance-like ally, who will do much of our fighting on the ground and unseat Saddam. But just last week the Washington Times reported that neither of the two rival Kurdish groups in northern Iraq want anything to do with an invasion of Iraq. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:6 In the meeting last month, Scott Ritter reminded members of Congress that a nation cannot go to war based on assumptions and guesses, that a lack of knowledge is no basis on which to initiate military action. Mr. Ritter warned those present that remaining quiescent in the face of the administration’s seeming determination to exceed the authority granted to go after those who attacked us, will actually hurt the president and will hurt Congress. He concluded by stating that going in to Iraq without Congressionally-granted authority would be a “failure of American democracy.” Those pounding the war drums loudest for an invasion of Iraq should pause for a moment and ponder what Scott Ritter is saying. Thousands of lives are at stake. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:7 [From the Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2002] BEHIND "PLOT" ON HUSSEIN, A SECRET AGENDA (By Scott Ritter) President Bush has reportedly authorized the CIA to use all of the means at its disposal- including U.S. military special operations forces and CIA paramilitary teams- to eliminate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. According to reports, the CIA is to view any such plan as "preparatory" for a larger military strike. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:8 Congressional leaders from both parties have greeted these reports with enthusiasm. In their rush to be seen as embracing the president’s hard-line stance on Iraq, however, almost no one in Congress has questioned why a supposedly covert operation would be made public, thus undermining the very mission it was intended to accomplish. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:9 It is high time that Congress start questioning the hype and rhetoric emanating from the White House regarding Baghdad, because the leaked CIA plan is well timed to undermine the efforts underway in the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back to work in Iraq. In early July, the U.N. secretary-general will meet with Iraq’s foreign minister for a third round of talks on the return of the weapons monitors. A major sticking point is Iraqi concern over the use- or abuse- of such inspections by the U.S. for intelligence collection. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:10 I recall during my time as a chief inspector in Iraq the dozens of extremely fit “missile experts” and “logistics specialists” who frequented my inspection teams and others. Drawn from U.S. units such as Delta Force or from CIA paramilitary teams such as the Special Activities Staff (both of which have an ongoing role in the conflict in Afghanistan), these specialists had a legitimate part to play in the difficult cat-and-mouse effort to disarm Iraq. So did the teams of British radio intercept operators I ran in Iraq from 1996 to 1998- which listened in on the conversations of Hussein’s inner circle- and the various other intelligence specialists who were part of the inspection effort. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:11 The presence of such personnel on inspection teams was, and is, viewed by the Iraqi government as an unacceptable risk to its nation’s security. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:12 As early as 1992, the Iraqis viewed the teams I led inside Iraq as a threat to the safety of their president. They were concerned that my inspections were nothing more than a front for a larger effort to eliminate their leader. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:13 Those concerns were largely baseless while I was in Iraq. Now that Bush has specifically authorized American covert-operations forces to remove Hussein, however, the Iraqis will never trust an inspection regime that has already shown itself susceptible to infiltration and manipulation by intelligence services hostile to Iraq, regardless of any assurances the U.N. secretary-general might give. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:14 The leaked CIA covert operations plan effectively kills any chance of inspectors returning to Iraq, and it closes the door on the last opportunity for shedding light on the true state of affairs regarding any threat in the form of Iraq weapons of mass destruction. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:15 Absent any return of weapons inspectors, no one seems willing to challenge the Bush administration’s assertions of an Iraqi threat. If Bush has a factual case against Iraq concerning weapons of mass destruction, he hasn’t made it yet. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:16 Can the Bush administration substantiate any of its claims that Iraq continues to pursue efforts to reacquire its capability to produce chemical and biological weapons, which was dismantled and destroyed by U.N. weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998? The same question applies to nuclear weapons. What facts show that Iraq continues to pursue nuclear weapons aspirations? Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:17 Bush spoke ominously of an Iraqi ballistic missile threat to Europe. What missile threat is the president talking about? These questions are valid, and if the case for war is to be made, they must be answered with more than speculative rhetoric. Iraq Inspection or Invasion in Iraq? June 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 57:18 Congress has seemed unwilling to challenge the Bush administration’s pursuit of war against Iraq. The one roadblock to an all- out U.S. assault would be weapons inspectors reporting on the facts inside Iraq. Yet without any meaningful discussion and debate by Congress concerning the nature of the threat posed by Baghdad, war seems all but inevitable. Iraq Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:10 As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world. Iraq Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:71 This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly- something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal. Iraq Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:83 We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let’s go get him instead. Iraq Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:94 This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to do, especially when we’re dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone’s head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: “Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the United States.” Since no one can prove this, the warmongers shout: “Let’s march on Baghdad.” Iraq Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:6 We cannot ignore the fact that all of Iraq’s neighbors oppose this attack, and our European allies object as well. Iraq Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:10 First, there is a practical reason to oppose a war in Iraq. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and when we go into Iraq we will clearly dilute our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our national defense by initiating this war. Besides, it is impractical because of unintended consequences which none of us know about. We do not know exactly how long this will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war, or six years or even longer. Iraq Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:15 There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our economy. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure when we do not know what the outcome will be and how long it will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What will happen to the deficit? We must expect all kinds of economic ramifications. Iraq Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:16 There are countless diplomatic reasons for not going. All the Arab nations near Iraq object to and do not endorse our plans, and none of our European allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we make a serious mistake by doing this. I hope we have second thoughts and are very cautious in what we do. Iraq Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War September 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 81:18 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. Iraq Avoid War With Iraq 4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:4 First, it is a practical reason. There is no practical defense for this. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and actually when we go into Iraq, as we may well do, we will weaken our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our defense by initiating this war. Iraq Avoid War With Iraq 4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:11 There are economic reasons that we must be careful for. We can make serious economic mistakes. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure that we do not know what the outcome will be and how long this will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What is going to happen to the deficit? All kinds of economic ramification. So we better not make the mistake of going into something that really we have no business getting into. Iraq Avoid War With Iraq 4 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 82:12 There is a diplomatic reason for not going. There could be serious diplomatic mistakes made. All the Arab nations nearby and adjacent to Iraq object to it and do not endorse what we plan and insist that we might be doing, and none of the European allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we are way off on doing this. Iraq The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:20 Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq. We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we are planning a risky war to remove him from power; and as usual, the probable result of such an effort would be something that our government does not anticipate like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he is an enemy of the al- Qaeda and someone new well may be a close ally of the Islamic radicals. Iraq The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:25 Clinton’s bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton’s bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured the Muslim people of the Middle Eastern countries of a U.S. balanced policy. The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the deadly sanctions, resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security and has been used as one of the excuses for recruiting the fanatics ready to sacrifice their lives and demonstrating their hatred toward us. Iraq The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:29 If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths and unwon wars and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world. Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance, and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with their routine bombing missions. Iraq The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:30 Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein might not readily accept U.N. inspectors without some type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi Arabia, is the real reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam Hussein? If it is merely to remove dictators around the world, this is the beginning of an endless task. Iraq The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:37 A proper foreign policy of nonintervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade and maximum travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas. Nations that trade with each other are definitely less likely to fight against each other. Unnecessary bellicosity and jingoism is detrimental to peace and prosperity and incites unnecessary confrontation. And yet today that is about all we hear coming from the politicians and the media pundits who are so anxious for this war against Iraq. Iraq The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:61 This Soviet collapse ushered in the age of unparalleled American dominance over the entire world and along with it allowed the new expanded hot war between the West and the Muslim East. All the hostility directed toward the West built up over the centuries between the two factions is now directed toward the United States. We are now the only power capable of paying for and literally controlling the Middle East and its cherished wealth, and we have not hesitated. Iraq, with its oil and water and agricultural land, is a prime target of our desire to further expand our dominion. The battle is growing ever so tense with our acceptance and desire to control the Caspian Sea oil riches. But Russia, now licking its wounds and once again accumulating wealth, will not sit idly by and watch the American empire engulf this region. When time runs out for us, we can be sure Russia will once again be ready to fight for control of all those resources in countries adjacent to her borders. And expect the same from China and India. And who knows, maybe one day even Japan will return to the ancient art of using force to occupy the cherished territories in their region of the world. Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:1 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. Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:3 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 ? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:5 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:6 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:7 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:8 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:9 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:13 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:16 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:19 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:20 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:24 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:25 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? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:28 27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? Iraq Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq September 10, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 85:32 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? Iraq A Political Mistake September 18, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 87:3 I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and occupy Iraq and have observed that there are only a few hardy souls left in the Congress who are trying to stop this needless, senseless, and dangerous war. They have adequately refuted every one of the excuses for this war of aggression; but, obviously, either no one listens, or the unspoken motives for this invasion silence those tempted to dissent. Iraq Can We Afford this War? September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:8 But the only talk here in the nation’s capitol is about when, not if, we must initiate a war that even the administration admits could cost $200 billion. Some are not even embarrassed to gloat about the political benefits for those who preach war over those who prefer negotiations, diplomacy and containment. The fact that the Arab nations are overwhelmingly opposed to an attack on Iraq and are joined by the European Community is of no concern to those who demand war regardless of any circumstance. Iraq Can We Afford this War? September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:9 Eighty percent of the American people now report that they believe that a war with Iraq will increase the chances of our suffering from a new terrorist attack. If this is true, we become less secure with an attack on Iraq, since little has been done to correct the deficiencies in the intelligence gathering agencies and our immigration policies. Iraq Can We Afford this War? September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:10 No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism. Many other nations pose much greater threats to world peace. Yet no one is clamoring for war against them. Saddam Hussein is now weaker than ever. Iraq Can We Afford this War? September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:11 Reports are now appearing that we are negotiating with allies to share in the oil bounty once Iraq is occupied in order to get support for our invasion from various countries around the world. Iraq Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:5 Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from- rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Iraq Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:9 In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. Iraq Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:11 A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. Iraq Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:12 History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. Iraq Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:14 It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. Iraq Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? October 3, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 94:15 An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:1 Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:11 But the indication is because he shot at us, therefore, it is an act of aggression. However, what is cited as the reason for us flying over the no-fly zone comes from U.N. Resolution 688, which instructs us and all the nations to contribute to humanitarian relief in the Kurdish and the Shiite areas. It says nothing about no-fly zones, and it says nothing about bombing missions over Iraq. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:13 I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:16 Mr. Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:17 Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:19 Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established "no-fly zones." Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:20 Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq’s repression of the Kurds and Shi’ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi’ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn’t the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:21 Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:22 Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:23 Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:24 Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against former. President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymore Hersh’s article from Nov. 1993: Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:25 Three years ago, during Iraq’s six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. ( Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush .) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn’t. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:26 This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh: Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:27 The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad…Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.’s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf . Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:28 At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:30 Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report: Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:31 In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds…throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:32 Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance . To begin with. There were never any victims produced . International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq . The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee … Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:33 It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds . Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:35 Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:36 Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:37 Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:38 Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM’s chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated: Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:39 One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three … Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:40 The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid — used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin — directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:41 These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:43 Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles is just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:44 Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Iraq Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 96:45 Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:1 Mr. Speaker, government efforts at benevolence always backfire. Inevitably, unintended consequences overwhelm the short-term and narrow benefits of authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, the people morally better, and the world safe for democracy. One hundred years of intense government "benevolence" in the United States has brought us to the brink of economic collapse, a domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas. And now our obsession with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash consequences that no one can accurately foresee. The negative possibilities are unlimited and the benefits negligible. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:2 Some have warned that the planned pre-emptive invasion of Iraq could prove so destabilizing to the region and the world that it literally could ignite a worldwide conflict big enough to be called World War III. Nuclear exchanges are perhaps even more likely to occur under the conditions of an expanded Middle east war than they were at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets and U.S. had literally thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If we carry out our threats to invade and occupy Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally, the odds are at least 50-50 that this worst case scenario will result. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:3 The best-case scenario would be a short war, limited to weeks and involving few American and Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in combination with a unified Iraqi welcome, the placing into power of a stable popular government that is long lasting, contributing to regional stability and prosperity, and free elections, just is what our planners are hoping for. The odds of achieving this miraculous result are probably one in 10,000. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:6 No local Iraqi or regional Arab support materializes. Instead of a spontaneous uprising as is hoped, the opposite occurs. The Iraqi citizens anxious to get rid of Hussein join in his defense, believing foreign occupation and control of their oil is far worse than living under the current dictator. Already we see that sanctions have done precisely that. Instead of blaming Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime for the suffering of the past decade, the Iraqi people blame the U.S.-led sanctions and the constant bombing by the U.S. and British. Hussein has increased his power and the people have suffered from the war against Iraq since 1991. There are a lot of reasons to believe this same reaction will occur with an escalation of our military attacks. Training dissidents like the Iraqi National Congress will prove no more reliable than the training and the military assistance we provided in the 70’s and the 80’s for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein when they qualified as U.S. "allies." Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:7 Pre-emptive war against Iraq may well prompt traditional enemies in the regions to create new alliances, as the hatred for America comes to exceed age-old hatreds that caused regional conflicts. Iraq already has made overtures and concessions to Iran and Kuwait, with some signs of conciliation being shown by both sides. Total domination of the entire Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea regions by the U.S. will surely stir survival instincts in these countries as well as in Russia. As the balance of power continues to shift in the U.S.’s favor, there will be even more reasons for countries like China and Pakistan to secretly support the nations that are being subjected to U.S. domination in the region. The U.S. will never have a free ride in its effort to control the entire world’s oil supply. Antagonisms are bound to build, and our ability to finance the multiple military conflicts that are bound to come is self-limited. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:8 The Kurds may jump at the chance, if chaos ensues, to fulfill their dream of an independent Kurdish homeland. This, of course, will stir the ire of the Turks and the Iranians. Instead of stability for northern Iraq, the war likely will precipitate more fighting than the war planners ever imagined. Delivering Kurdish Iraq to Turkey as a prize for its cooperation with our war plans will not occur without a heated and deadly struggle. Turkey is already deeply concerned about the prospect for Kurdish independence, and only remains loyal to America because U.S. taxpayers are forced to subsidize an already depressed Turkish economy caused by our Iraqi policies. More money will pacify for a while, but either frustration with the perpetual nature of the problem or our inability to continue the financial bailout will lead Turkey to have second thoughts about its obedience to our demands to wage war from their country. All of this raises the odds that Islamic radicals will once more take control of the Turkish government. These developing conditions increase the odds of civil strife erupting in Turkey. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:9 Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the arm once the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Turkey. Our placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950’s was a major reason that the Ayatollah eventually made it to power in the late 1970’s- a delayed but nevertheless direct consequence of our policy. Balance of power in this area of the world has always been delicate, and outside interference serves only to destabilize. There’s no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more stability. Promoting democracy, as it’s said we’re doing, is a farce. If elections were to occur in most of the Arab countries today, Osama bin Laden and his key allies would win. Besides, it seems we adapt quite well to working with military dictators that have ousted elected leaders, as we do in Pakistan by rewarding their cooperation with huge subsidies and future promises. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:10 In the chaos that may erupt, several countries might see an opportunity to move on their neighbors. Already we have been warned that cooperation from Russia means no American criticism or resistance to its moves in Georgia or Chechnya. China could attack Taiwan. North Korea could renew its struggle against South Korea. India may see this as an opportunity to settle the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan- with the real risk of nuclear war breaking out. It seems the obsession about Iraq’s improbable possession of nuclear weapons far exceeds the more realistic possibility that our pre-emptive strike against Iraq may precipitate a nuclear exchange between these two countries, or even a first strike with nuclear weapons by Israel against Iraq. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:12 If massive Iraqi civilian casualties result, as indeed is possible though not deliberate, expect more worldwide condemnation and even a UN resolution condemning what others will call American War Crimes. Our refusal to be subject to the International Criminal Court, while demanding others be tried in the court, will never sit well with the world community. Our position is a far cry from what it ought to be- demanding national sovereignty while promoting neutrality and friendship with all nations. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:13 Our own CIA has warned that war with Iraq will more likely cause Saddam Hussein to use any massively lethal weapons that he might have than if we don’t attack him. Also, they warned that the likelihood of al Qaeda attacks on our own soil will increase once an invasion begins. This, of course, could cause a wave of well-placed snipers around the United States. Iraq Unintended Consequences November 14, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 102:14 It is now admitted that over 150,000 U.S. servicemen are suffering from Persian Gulf War Syndrome as a result of the first Persian Gulf War. Our government would like to ignore this fact, but a new war literally could create an epidemic of casualties of the same sort, since the exact etiology is not completely understood. The number of deaths and injuries that might occur from an occupation of Iraq is unknown, but conceivably could be much higher than anyone wants to imagine. Iraq Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:53 Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with the tone of moral arrogance that it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-building. Iraq Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:56 No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised billions of dollars to Turkey to buy their support for the new Persian Gulf War. Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to the al Qaeda, is financing and training. It is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi Government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally. Iraq Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:58 There is no credibility in our contention that we really want to impose democracy on other nations, yet promoting democracy is the public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying we are going to risk the lives of young people and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves of Iraq. After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of that happening in even 100 years are remote. It is virtually impossible to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated to the protection of liberty anyplace in the region. Iraq Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:61 We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack, but we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us. Bin Laden claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with bases on the Holy Land and Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians, as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. Iraq Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, Sr., proudly spoke of “The New World Order,” a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received U.N. authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this U.N. authority was adequate and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time, there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War, therefore, was clearly a U.N. political war fought within U.N. guidelines, not for U.S. security; and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the act of fighting. Although this is referred to as the Second Persian Gulf War, it is merely a continuation of a war started long ago and is likely to continue for a long time, even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power. Iraq Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:5 In this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have U.N. support, but it is not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty, but no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a U.N. prerogative and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress. Iraq Another United Nations War 25 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 24:10 From my viewpoint, the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens, we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostility to all of Asia or even further. Iraq The Myth of War Prosperity March 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 28:11 We are lingering in Korea. What a mess! We have been there for 58 years, have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we still have achieved nothing- because we went there under U.N. resolutions and we did not fight to victory. The same was true with the first Persian Gulf War. We went into Iraq without a declaration of war. We went there under the U.N., we are still there, and nobody knows how long we will be there. So there are many costs, some hidden and some overt. But the greatest threat, the greatest cost of war is the threat to individual liberty. So I caution my colleagues that we should move much more cautiously and hope and pray for peace. Iraq American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003 6 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 31:3 As the United States faces another undeclared war for the United Nations — as is specified in the authorization for the use of force against Iraq (Public Law 107–243) — it is past time that we return to the principles of our founding fathers. Iraq War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending 3 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 46:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, at a time of war Congress has no more important duty than to make sure that our military force have all the resources they need. However, Congress also has a duty to not use the war as cover for unnecessary and unconstitutional spending. This is especially true when war coincides with a period of economic downturn and growing federal deficits. Unfortunately, Congress today is derelict in its duty to the United States taxpayer. Instead of simply ensuring that our military has the necessary resources to accomplish its mission in Iraq, a mission which may very well be over before this money reaches the Pentagon, Congress has loaded this bill up with unconstitutional wasteful foreign aid and corporate welfare spending. Iraq War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending 3 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 46:4 On foreign spending, this bill actually provides one billion dollars in foreign aid to Turkey — even though that country refused the U.S. request for cooperation in the war on Iraq. One billion dollars to a country that thumbed its nose at an American request for assistance? How is this possibly an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money? Additionally, this “war supplemental” has provided cover for more of the same unconstitutional foreign aid spending. It provides 2.5 billion dollar for Iraqi reconstruction when Americans have been told repeatedly that reconstruction costs will be funded out of Iraqi oil revenues. It also ensures that the American taxpayer will subsidize large corporations that wish to do business in Iraq by making transactions with Iraq eligible for support from the Export-Import Bank. It sends grants and loans in excess of 11.5 billion dollars to Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan — above and beyond the money we already send them each year. Iraq War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending 3 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 46:5 Incredibly, this bill sends 175 million dollars in aid to Pakistan even though it was reported in April that Pakistan purchased ballistic missiles from North Korea! Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how $100 million to Colombia, $50 million to the Gaza Strip, and $200 million for “Muslim outreach” has anything to do with the current war in Iraq. Also, this bill spends $31 million to get the federal government into the television broadcasting business in the Middle East. With private American news networks like CNN available virtually everywhere on the globe, is there any justification to spend taxpayer money to create and fund competing state-run networks? Aren’t state-run news networks one of the features of closed societies we have been most critical of in the past? Iraq United States Embargo On Cuba 9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 48:4 I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti- American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked — when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies. Iraq United States Embargo On Cuba 9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 48:5 Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation’s farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these countries. The Department of Agriculture estimates that Iraq alone represents a $1 billion market for American farm goods. Given our status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors. Iraq United States Embargo On Cuba 9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 48:6 I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately. Iraq America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote April 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 51:2 Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act. But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding. Iraq Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS 1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 54:4 Mr. Chairman, at a time when the government is running record deficits, is engaged in an enormously expensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and is even cutting veterans benefits, I find it extremely irresponsible that we are discussing sending additional billions overseas in yet another dubious program. Additionally, I am greatly concerned that the billions we are contributing to the “Global Fund” will be going to organizations that support and perform abortions, prostitution, infanticide and other horrors. There is nothing in this bill to prevent this, only faith that the Coordinator will exercise good judgment in these matters. That is simply not sufficient. I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise. Iraq The Flag Burning Amendment June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:24 Fortunately, Congress has models of flag desecration laws. For example, Saddam Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Iraq H. Con. res. 177 4 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 61:2 I believe it is appropriate for Congress to recognize and commend this service to our country and I join with my colleagues to do so. I am concerned, however, that legislation like H. Con. Res. 177 seeks to use our support for the troops to advance a very political and controversial message. In addition to expressing sympathy and condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives in service to our country, for example, this legislation endorses the kind of open-ended occupation and nation-building that causes me great concern. It “recommits” the United States to “helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan build free and vibrant democratic societies.” What this means is hundreds of thousands of American troops remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, engaged in nation-building activities that the military is neither trained nor suited for. It also means tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of American tax dollars being shipped abroad at a time when our national debt is reaching unprecedented levels. Iraq H. Con. res. 177 4 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 61:3 The legislation inaccurately links our military action against Afghanistan, whose government was in partnership with Al-Qaeda, with our recent attack on Iraq, claiming that these were two similar campaigns in the war on terror. In fact, some of us are more concerned that the policy of pre-emptive military action, such as was the case in Iraq, will actually increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States — a phenomenon already predicted by the CIA. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, (1) After more than two months of searching, no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been discovered in Iraq. While it is not impossible that something may be discovered, the fact that no WMD were used during the war and none have yet been discovered afterward indicates that Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:2 (2) Assuming that no WMD are discovered in Iraq, it appears that Iraq may have actually been following the various UN resolutions that demanded the destruction of this weapons material. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:3 (3) Before the attack on Iraq, it was claimed that Iraq would destroy its oil wells. Though some explosives may have been found at some sites, it is clear that there was no coordinated Iraqi effort to demolish its oil facilities. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:4 (4) Before the attack, it was claimed that the Iraqi government would blow up dams to slow down invading troops. It did not do so. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:5 (5) Despite claims before the attack, there is no evidence of sustained, high-level contacts between the Iraqi government and the Al- Qaeda terrorist network. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:6 (6) US troops and defense planners were shocked that the Iraqi army simply melted away as the US attack pressed toward Baghdad. An army that cannot even defend its own territory is hardly a threat to its neighbors — or to the United States 6,000 miles away. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:7 (7) Considering the apparent lack of WMD and the total failure of the Iraqi army, claims that Iraq was a threat to United States national security appear to have been inaccurate. I publicly doubted such claims before the attack. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:8 (8) Ending Saddam Hussein’s rule over Iraq hasn’t solved much. Even with Saddam removed from power, we are told that that “regime change” as such is not enough: there must be a “process” of regime change where the end-goal is to remake Iraq and Iraqi society in our own image. This is otherwise known as “nation-building.” Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:9 (9) Chaos and lawlessness prevails across Iraq. There is no functioning police force other than American troops. Anger toward the United States occupying force continues to increase. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:10 (10) There is little chance of anything resembling democracy emerging in Iraq any time soon. Any real “democracy” that emerges will likely have a fundamentalist Islamic flavor and will be hostile to other religious and ethnic groups in Iraq. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:11 (11) American soldiers are still getting killed on a regular basis. More organized forces seeking to kill American troops appear to be springing up across Iraq. Frustration with the American occupation of Iraq seems to be adding to the ranks of these organized anti-occupation forces, multiplying the threat to American troops. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:12 (12) There are more US troops being sent to Iraq now that major hostilities have ended. Troops that were supposed to be coming home have been told they must remain in Iraq because of the continued chaos and danger to American forces. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:13 (13) Though it was claimed before the US attack that proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil would be sufficient to rebuild the country, it is now obvious that this will not be the case. The brunt of the burden of Iraqi reconstruction will therefore fall on the American taxpayer. Much of the damage is the result of our own bombing of that country. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:14 (14) At a time when the US economy continues to falter, costs of occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have skyrocketed. Money spent rebuilding Iraq is money not available to help the US economy recover. Iraq Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered 19 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 67:18 (18) Nation-building — from creating a healthcare system to organizing trash pick-up to running the Iraqi media — has become our number one goal in Iraq. Iraq Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal? June 25, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 68:3 I sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests the British Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has embraced American values such as freedom and limited government, as Margaret Thatcher attempted before him. No, Tony Blair is being given this medal for one reason: he provided political support when international allies were sought for America’s attack on Iraq. Does this overtly political justification not cheapen both the medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it previously? Iraq Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:15 In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked. Iraq Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:46 It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal , Commentary , and the New York Post , their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy. Iraq Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:47 In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda. Iraq Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:48 The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster. Iraq Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:49 The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post , and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy. Iraq Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:50 Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea? Iraq Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:76 Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks. Iraq Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 75:5 We also lose our sovereignty when we look to the U.N. for guidance. When we declared war or when we went to war without declaration of war last fall, we had a resolution on the floor which cited the U.N. 23 different times. I do not believe we should go to war under U.N. resolutions, and we have essentially been in Iraq under U.N. resolution because in the early 1990s it was under U.N. resolution that we went to war. The old-fashioned way of going to war was a declaration of war. Iraq Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 75:7 It gets to be almost a joke around the world about some of the things the U.N. does. When you think about the Commission of Human Rights and who is appointed as the chairman of the Commission of Human Rights, nobody else other than Libya. And before the war it was actually Iraq who was supposed to chair the Disarmament Commission. Iraq Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 2 15 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 77:4 However, too often I think they leave doing these programs that are designed to help people who are truly suffering versus getting involved with what we call peacekeeping missions. The United Nations are not allowed to declare war. They never go to war, and yet too often we get involved in war. That is why they were called peacekeepers in Korea. That is why it is a peacekeeping mission when we go to Iraq. But, still, the armies are raised, and young men are called off, and people are killed on these peacekeeping missions. Therefore, I say that the United Nations has tended to take away the responsibilities of this Congress to make these very, very important decisions. Iraq The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act 17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 79:9 Just about every analyst and “expert” on Wall Street willing to mention any of this has been quick to explain that the increase in the price of gold is due to impending war with Iraq. But hard-money analysts are arguing that should the United States go to war it will be of very little consequence to the price of gold — a momentary blip — because gold is a commodity and its price a matter of supply and demand. Iraq The Foreign Aid Limitation Act 17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 80:4 In particular, there was great controversy over the Clinton administration’s use of the ESF to finance the Mexican bailout without Congressional approval in 1995. Today, there is a similar controversy over the use of the ESF in the Iraq rebuilding process. Ensuring the fund is only used for narrow purposes will help end the controversy by bringing greater transparency to the disbursement of foreign aid. Even supporters of a vigorous foreign aid program should support restoring Congress’ rightful role as appropriator and overseer of foreign aid funds. Iraq The Justifications for War July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:1 Madam Speaker, the truth about whether or not Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium from Niger has dominated the news for the past several weeks. Many of those challenging the administration on this issue are motivated more by politics than by policy. Some of today’s critics were strongly in favor of going to war against Iraq when doing so appeared politically popular, but now are chagrined that the war is not going as smoothly as was hoped. Iraq The Justifications for War July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:6 No evidence has been revealed to indicate Iraq was a threat to the security of any nation, let alone America. Iraq The Justifications for War July 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 85:10 Since we lack a coherent foreign policy, we see support for war from different groups depending on circumstances unrelated to national defense. For instance, those who strenuously objected to Kosovo promoted war in Iraq. And those who objected to Iraq are now anxious to send troops to Liberia. For some, U.N. permission is important and necessary. For others, the U.N. is helpful provided it endorses the war they want. Iraq UNESCO — Part 2 22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:8 UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention has taken treasured American public monuments to be designated world heritage sites. This is a movement away from the concept of national sovereignty. This means that there will not be control by the American people through their Representative. That makes every single one of us less significant, not only in the issue of war but now in the issue of schools and taxation. Yes, it moves slowly, it is not overwhelming; we still have a lot of control, but we are losing it gradually. And we do know that even those who objected to the war in Iraq would have been quite happy if only the United Nations would have passed a resolution that permitted us to go to war. I do not like that kind of a world. The only oath of office I take is the oath to the U.S. Constitution and UNESCO does not conform to that oath. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. Iraq Stay out of Liberia! 24 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 90:4 Before we commit our troops to yet another foreign intervention, Congress must at the very least consider the implications of further committing our already seriously overextended military. According to recent press reporting, of the 33 brigades that make up the entirety of the US Army’s active duty combat forces, all but just three brigades are either currently engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea; are committed to other missions; or are reconstituting. This suggests that the US military is in serious danger of becoming over-extended. Iraq Paper Money and Tyranny September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:8 Even with this history and great concern expressed by the Founders, the barriers to paper money have been torn asunder. The Constitution has not been changed, but is no longer applied to the issue of money. It was once explained to me, during the debate over going to war in Iraq, that a declaration of war was not needed because to ask for such a declaration was “frivolous” and that the portion of the Constitution dealing with congressional war power was “anachronistic.” So too, it seems that the power over money given to Congress alone and limited to coinage and honest weights, is now also “anachronistic.” Iraq We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:1 Mr. Speaker, the neo-conservative media machine has been hard at work lately drumming up support for the $87 billion appropriation to extend our precarious occupation of Iraq. Opposition to this funding, according to the Secretary of Defense, encourages our enemies and hinders the war against terrorism. This is a distortion of the facts and is nothing more than attacking the messenger when one disapproves of the message. Iraq We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:3 The President recently reminded us that we went into Iraq to force its compliance with U.N. resolutions, since the U.N. itself was not up to the task. It was not for national security reasons. Yet we all know that the U.N. never endorsed this occupation. Iraq We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:4 The question we in the Congress ought to ask is this: What if our efforts to westernize and democratize Iraq do not work? Who knows? Many believe that our pursuit of nation building in Iraq will actually make things worse in Iraq, in the entire Middle East, throughout the entire Muslim world, and even here in the United States. Iraq We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:6 Since no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, nor any evidence that the army of Saddam Hussein could have threatened the security of any nation, let alone the United States, a new reason is now given to justify an endless entanglement in a remote area of the world 6,000 miles from our homeland. Iraq We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:7 We are now told that we must occupy Iraq to fight the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. Yet not one shred of evidence has been produced to show that the Iraqi government had anything to do with 9/11 or any affiliation with al-Qaeda. Iraq We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:8 The American people are first told they have to sacrifice to pay for the bombing of Iraq. Now they must accept the fact that they must pay to rebuild it. If they complain, they will be accused of being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. I wonder what a secret poll of our troops would reveal about whether they thought public support for bringing them home next week indicated a lack of support for their well-being. Iraq We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:12 While we nation-build in Iraq in the name of defeating terrorism, we ignore our responsibilities to protect our borders at home while we compromise the liberties of our citizens with legislation like the Patriot Act. Iraq We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:13 There are two main reasons we need to reject the foreign policy of the past 50 years that has been used to rationalize our presence in Iraq. First, the practical: We cannot expect to force western, U.S.-style democracy on a nation that for over 1,000 years learned to live with and accept an Islamic-based legal system. No matter what we say or believe, to the Iraqis they have been invaded by the Christian west, and whether it is the United States, U.N. or European troops that are sent to teach them the ways of the west it will not matter. Iraq Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria October 15, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 106:4 This bill imposes an embargo on Syria for, among other reasons, the Syrian government’s inability to halt fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq. While I agree that any foreign fighters coming into Iraq to attack American troops is totally unacceptable, I wonder just how much control Syria has over its borders — particularly over the chaotic border with Iraq. If Syria has no control over its borders, is it valid to impose sanctions on the country for its inability to halt clandestine border crossings? I find it a bit ironic to be imposing a trade embargo on Syria for failing to control its borders when we do not have control of our own borders. Scores cross illegally into the United States each year – potentially including those who cross over with the intent to do us harm – yet very little is done to secure our own borders. Perhaps this is because our resources are too engaged guarding the borders of countless countries overseas. But there is no consistency in our policy. Look at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan: while we continue to maintain friendly relations and deliver generous foreign aid to Pakistan, it is clear that Pakistan does not control its border with Afghanistan. In all likelihood, Osama bin Laden himself has crossed over the Afghan border into Pakistan. No one proposes an embargo on Pakistan. On the contrary: the supplemental budget request we are taking up this week includes another $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan. Iraq Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria October 15, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 106:7 “The Syrians have in custody Mohammed Haydar Zammer, believed to have recruited some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and several high-level Iraqis who were connected to the Saddam Hussein government have turned up in US custody.” Iraq Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria October 15, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 106:10 This bill may even go further than that. In a disturbing bit of déjà vu, the bill makes references to “Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)” and threatens to “impede” Syrian weapons ambitions. This was the justification for our intervention in Iraq, yet after more than a thousand inspectors have spent months and some 300 million dollars none have been found. Will this bill’s unproven claims that Syria has WMD be later used to demand military action against that country? Iraq Supplemental Appropriation 16 October 2003    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: Iraq Supplemental Appropriation 16 October 2003    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.” Iraq Supplemental Appropriation 16 October 2003    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. Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:1 Mr. Speaker: I rise in opposition to this request for nearly $87 billion to continue the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is money we do not have being shipped away on a foreign welfare program. The burden on our already weakened economy could well be crippling. Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:2 Those who argue that we must vote for this appropriation because “we must succeed” in Iraq are misguided. Those who say this have yet to define what it means – in concrete terms – to have “success” in Iraq. What is success in Iraq? How will we achieve success in Iraq? How will we know when we have succeeded in Iraq? About how long will “success” take to achieve and about how much will it cost? These are reasonable questions to have when we are asked to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars, but thus far we have heard little more than nice-sounding platitudes. Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:4 Mr. Speaker this reconstruction of Iraq – that we are making but a down-payment on today – is at its core just another foreign policy boondoggle. The $20 billion plan to “rebuild” Iraq tilts heavily toward creating a statist economy and is filled with very liberal social-engineering programs. Much of the money in this reconstruction plan will be wasted - as foreign aid most often is. Much will be wasted as corporate welfare to politically connected corporations; much will be thrown away at all the various “non-government organizations” that aim to teach the Iraqis everything from the latest American political correctness to the “right” way to vote. The bill includes $900 million to import petroleum products into Iraq (a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world); $793 million for healthcare in Iraq when we’re in the midst of our own crisis and about to raise Medicare premiums of our seniors; $10 million for "women’s leadership programs" (more social engineering); $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan (a military dictatorship that likely is the home of Osama bin Laden); $245 million for the "U.S. share" of U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia and Sudan; $95 million for education in Afghanistan; $600 million for repair and modernization of roads and bridges in Iraq (while our own infrastructure crumbles). Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:6 This request - which was not the first and will not be the last - demonstrates in the most concrete terms that there is a real and concrete cost of our policy of interventionism. The American taxpayer paid to bomb Baghdad and now will pay to rebuild Iraq – its schools, hospitals, prisons, roads, and more. Many Americans cannot afford to send their own children to college, but with the money in this bill they will be sending Iraqi kids to college. Is this really what the American people want? Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:7 The real point is that the billions we are told we must spend to rebuild Iraq is indeed the natural outcome of our policy of pre-emptive military intervention. All those who voted for the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq have really already voted for this supplemental. There is no military intervention without a “Marshall Plan” afterward, regardless of our ability to pay. And the American people will be expected to pay for far more. This current request is only perhaps step four in what will likely be a 10 or more step program to remake Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the image of Washington, D.C. social engineers and “global planners.” What will be steps five, six, seven, eight? Long-term occupation, micro-managing Iraq’s economy, organizing and managing elections, writing an Iraqi constitution. And so on. When will it end? Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:8 There is also much said about how we must support this supplemental because to do otherwise would mean not supporting the troops. I resent this dishonest accusation. It is nothing but a red herring. I wonder if an American currently serving an open-ended occupation in Iraq would think that bringing him home next week would be a good show of support for our troops. Maintaining an increasingly deadly occupation of Iraq and bankrupting many of our reservists and National Guard troops by unilaterally extending their contracts to serve in an active deployment is hardly “supporting the troops.” Perhaps that is why a Stars and Stripes newspaper survey of the troops in Iraq this week found that a majority had very low morale. And according to the same Stars and Stripes survey, an increasing number are not planning to re-enlist. Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:9 Conservatives often proclaim that they are opposed to providing American welfare to the rest of the world. I agree. The only way to do that, however, is to stop supporting a policy of military interventionism. You cannot have one without the other. If a military intervention against Syria and Iran are next, it will be the same thing: we will pay to bomb the country and we will pay even more to rebuild it - and as we see with the plan for Iraq, this rebuilding will not be done on the cheap. The key fallacy in the argument of the militarists is that there is some way to fight a war without associated costs - the costs of occupation, reconstruction, “institution-building,” “democracy programs.” Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:10 I opposed our action against Iraq for two main reasons. I sincerely believed that our national security was not threatened and I did not believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime was involved in the attack on the United States on 9/11. I believe what we have learned since the intervention has supported my view. Meanwhile, while our troops are trying to police the border between Syria and Iraq our own borders remain as porous as ever. Terrorists who entered our country could easily do so again through our largely un-patrolled borders. While we expend American blood and treasure occupying a country that was not involved in the attack on the US, those who were responsible for the attack most likely are hiding out in Pakistan - a military dictatorship we are now allied with and to which this supplemental sends some $200 million in loan guarantees. Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:11 Our continued occupation of Iraq is not producing the promised results, despite efforts to paint a brighter picture of the current situation. What once was a secular dictatorship appears to be moving toward being a fundamentalist Islamic regime – not the democracy we were promised. As repulsive as Saddam’s regime was, the prospect of an Iraq run by Islamic clerics, aligned with Iranian radicals and hostile to the United States, is no more palatable. There are signs that this is the trend. The press reports regularly on attacks against Iraq’s one million Christians. Those hand-picked by the United States to run Iraq have found themselves targets for assassination. Clerics are forming their own militias. The thousands of non-combatants killed in the US intervention are seeking revenge against the unwanted American occupiers. Iraq Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq October 17, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 110:12 Mr. Speaker, throwing billions of dollars after a failed policy will not produce favorable results. We are heading full-speed toward bankruptcy, yet we continue to spend like there is no tomorrow. There will be a tomorrow, however. The money we are spending today is real. The bill will be paid, whether through raising taxes or printing more money. Either way, the American people will become poorer in pursuit of a policy that cannot and will not work. We cannot re-make the world in our own image. The stated aim was to remove Saddam Hussein. That mission is accomplished. The best policy now for Iraq is to declare victory and bring our troops home. We should let the people of Iraq rebuild their own country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this supplemental request. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:3 The debate has ended, it is said, with this vote; but in many ways I think the debate is only really getting started. The debate has been going on a long time dealing with Iraq. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:4 It did not even start after 9–11. It is true within weeks after 9–11 the Project for New American Century saw this as an opportunity to bring forth their suggestions that they had made many years ago, and they have been agitating forth for over 10 years, and that is to go into Iraq; and they saw this as an opportunity. But actually, this debate has been going on even a lot longer. Certainly since the first Iraqi war in 1990 and the persistence of our bombing of Iraq, as well as the embargo and boycotts of Iraq served to do a lot of internal damage to the Iraqi people. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:6 It may be that the lack of affordability may bring us to our senses before the logic of a foreign policy. That might make more sense than what we have been doing. Before the Iraqi war, the 18 months, actually there was a pretty strong debate here in the Congress. Several of us, quite a few of us, got to the floor and talked about the potentiality of war and why we thought it was a bad idea. My conclusion in October of 2002, 6 months or so before the invasion, was that we should not go in to Iraq. And it was a deeply held conviction, not only philosophically, because of a strong belief I have in nonintervention and the restraints that are placed on us by the Constitution, but also because I was convinced that our national security was not threatened by Saddam Hussein and that 9–11 had nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 9–11 nor Saddam Hussein. And I think the events since that time have proven that assumption to be correct. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:10 What we are involved here now with our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, we are involved in nation-building. And nobody in this country campaigns, whether it is for the Presidency or for a congressional seat or a Senate seat, nobody goes out and says, Elect me to Congress because I want to get into the business of nation- building. Nobody does that and yet really that is what we are talking about today. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:11 We are very much involved in nationbuilding in Afghanistan, and the successes there are very shaky. We probably occupy one city and not much more. And everybody reads daily about the shakiness of our occupation of Iraq. And we are very much involved in internal affairs of other nations, the kind of thing our founders said do not get involved in. Do not get involved in the internal affairs of other nations. Stay out of entangling alliances. And we are very much involved. The entangling alliance that I had the strongest objection to is the entangling alliance with the United Nations. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:12 So although it was seen by the world that we went into Iraq by defying the United Nations, if anybody would like to check and go back and look at the authorization for the use of force which was a transfer, illegal transfer of power to the President to pursue war, the United Nations was cited 16 times. There was a need to enforce the United Nations resolution. That was the justification for the Congress to transfer this power to the President in allowing him to make his own decision. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:17 This is one of the reasons why I think the debate just in these last couple of days on whether or not the money would be a loan or a grant really did not have a whole lot of merit. I happen to have supported all the amendments that said it should be a loan, not a grant, but it does not make a bit of difference because the likelihood of a country like Iraq, that does not have a government, being able to make a promise and then pay us back, we generally never get paid back anything. So that to me was a red-herring argument that was sort of one of the tactical or accounting arguments that occupied a tremendous amount of time here by avoiding the bigger issue on whether or not it is a proper role for the United States to be telling the rest of the world how to live and it is our obligation to nation-build and our obligation to redraw the lines of the Middle East. That is the bigger question, and this is the debate I hope to hear that we have on this floor some day. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:18 The policy of interventionism, I think it is dangerous as instead of reducing the odds of a terrorist attack, I believe it increases the odds of a terrorist attack. When I see us occupying Saudi Arabia, having an air base on land which is considered holy land, occupying the Persian Gulf that has a lot of oil, and it has been said we are there to protect our oil, that it would be equivalent to the Chinese coming in to the Gulf of Mexico and saying we do not have enough oil. And if they happen to be stronger and that they could come over and say, well, we are more powerful, we need imports, we are going to protect our oil in the Gulf of Mexico, we will have our Navy in the Gulf of Mexico, and if we need to we are going to put air bases in Florida and Texas and wherever. And then if the Chinese come in and say, well, your way of life is not our way of life, and we should teach you a better system, that is what I see as being equivalent to us being in the Persian Gulf occupying the Arab lands, and especially, now, Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:22 I would like to quote from the memoirs of George Bush, Senior, which he wrote, and they were published approximately 5 years ago, dealing with Iraq and what he thought about it, about the invasion of Iraq and why he did not go into Iraq. This comes from A World Transformed. This is George Bush, Senior. He says, Trying to eliminate Saddam 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 viable 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 period. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:30 I think this was a problem going into Iraq in 1990. It was an undeclared war. It was a U.N. war. It did not end it. It continued and it is still continuing into its 15th year, and here we are still arguing over the financing which I think is at very early stages. How long will we be there and how many men are going to die and how is it going to end? I am convinced as long as we follow this principle of foreign interventionism that we take it upon ourselves to spread democracy around the world, we are going to be running into trouble like this. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:36 One thing that we did not talk about in the debate of the $87 billion was a $600 million appropriation. It is not written in there explicitly, but there is a $9.3 billion authority to transfer funds over into the Pentagon and more or less having a slush fund to spend just about any way they want without any significant congressional oversight, but the $600 million has been asked for and will be achieved through this appropriation to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction. They have spent $300 million for six months, with 1,200 individuals combing the entire country of Iraq, and nothing has been found. So typically, American style, modern America, that is, double the amount of money, double the number of people and keep searching, because something will be found. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:37 My answer is, what if you do find something? What does it prove? Does it prove that he was a threat to our national security? No way. Does it prove that it was a relationship to Iraq and 9/ 11? No way. So this obsession is for saving face and nothing more. If there was a major nuclear or chemical weapon available that was about to be unleashed against us, it would have surely been found by now, but that was not debated, but I am sure that search will go on, and “when something is found,” and I put that in quotes, there will be a lot of questions asked. More questions will be asked than answers given. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:39 This is exactly what the project for a new America century wants. Syria is on their list and the sanctions put on Syria are essentially a prelude to war because that country, as part of the axis of evil, we have to get rid of that regime and they are helping the Iraqis so, therefore, war is coming, and I just cannot see how the average American is sitting around worrying about the Syrians, but they said the Syrians, there may be some people going back and forth from Syria and participating in the guerrilla war in Iraq, which may well be true, but then again, what about other borders? Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:43 We cannot achieve some of these goals that we have set for ourselves through force. We have what comes close to an obsession with democracy. You hear it constantly. We are over in Iraq because we are going to make it a democracy. Well, democratic elections are the way we all get here; but this obsession with democracy, well, democracy means there is a ruling of the majority. But what if the majority does not support freedom? Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:45 I have come to the conclusion that you cannot achieve this through the force of arms and that if you are participating in an unwelcome occupation, you cannot change a culture, you cannot change religious values, you cannot change a legal system. We would not accept the Chinese trying to tell us to live like the Chinese; and we are just as strange and different in Iraq as the Chinese would be here. So even with this grand motivation, it is a lost cause; and the sooner we own up to it, the better. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:46 If we want Iraq and other countries to act more like we do, it can be done; and that should be a goal. But there is a difference. There are two different ways we can do it. One, we can force people to do things and the other way is we can try to talk them into doing it in a voluntary fashion. If we did an exceptionally good job and we had a truly prosperous economy, which I believe a free market would achieve, which we do not have, where the greatest number of people would have the greatest benefits, truly set an example, have democratic elections but obey a constitution that is designed to protect liberty and protect minorities, if we set an example, then I sincerely believe others then would be more inclined to emulate us and to see us as an example. Iraq Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq 17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:60 It has to be personalized. Because if it is just, oh, we are willing to pay. Where does the money come from? We are flat-out broke. We have had the biggest deficit ever. Our dollar is going down on the market, and we are now assuming more liabilities. When we spend $87 billion in Iraq, that is literally taken out of our economy. Imagine how many jobs and how much improvement on the standard of living of Americans could occur with $87 billion, and at the same time believe sincerely that a policy of nonintervention would be the best policy for peace and prosperity. Iraq Conference Report On H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Yeas 2004 7 November 2003    2003 Ron Paul 116:4 Mr. Speaker, we need to make our veterans and our soldiers our top priority. We have entered into a contract with each of them. They have done their part and are doing their part every day — in conflicts across the globe including the increasingly deadly Iraq occupation. We must keep our end of the contract. I am sad to note that provisions like this watered- down concurrent receipt are not in keeping with our end of the contract. Iraq Conference Report On H.R. 2417 Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal year 2004 20 November 2003    2003 Ron Paul 121:3 I also have concerns about the rest of the bill. One of the few things we do know about this final version is that we are authorizing even more than the president has requested for the intelligence community. The intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but we must ask what we are getting for our money. It is notoriously difficult to assess the successes of our intelligence apparatus, and perhaps it is unfair that we only hear about its failures and shortcomings. However, we cannot help but be concerned over several such failures in recent years. Despite the tens of billions we spend on these myriad intelligence agencies, it is impossible to ignore the failure of our federal intelligence community to detect and prevent the September 11 attacks. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that our intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. These are by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in human lives and treasure. Yet from what little we can know about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would hope that we might begin coming up with new approaches to our intelligence needs, perhaps returning to an emphasis on the proven value of human intelligence and expanded linguistic capabilities for our intelligence personnel. Iraq Say No To Involuntary Servitude November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:3 But when it comes to war, the principle of deception lives on. The plan for “universal liability to serve” once again is raising its ugly head. The dollar cost of the current war is already staggering, yet plans are being made to drastically expand the human cost by forcing conscription on the young men (and maybe women) who have no ax to grind with the Iraqi people and want no part of this fight. Iraq Say No To Involuntary Servitude November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:5 We were told we had to support this pre-emptive war against Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (and to confront al Qaeda). It was said our national security depended on it. But all these dangers were found not to exist in Iraq. It was implied that lack of support for this Iraqi invasion was un-American and unpatriotic. Iraq Say No To Involuntary Servitude November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:6 Since the original reasons for the war never existed, it is now claimed that we’re there to make Iraq a western-style democracy and to spread western values. And besides, it’s argued, it’s nice that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. But does the mere existence of evil somewhere in the world justify preemptive war at the expense of the American people? Utopian dreams, fulfilled by autocratic means, hardly qualify as being morally justifiable. Iraq Say No To Involuntary Servitude November 21, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 122:8 The inevitable failure of such a seriously flawed foreign policy cannot be contemplated by those who have put so much energy into this occupation. The current quagmire prompts calls from many for escalation, with more troops being sent to Iraq. Many of our reservists and National Guardsmen cannot wait to get out and have no plans to re-enlist. The odds are that our policy of foreign intervention, which has been with us for many decades, is not likely to soon change. The dilemma of how to win an un-winnable war is the issue begging for an answer. Iraq Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War February 4, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 1:1 There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made by going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge Saddam Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction, and that Al Qaida and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi government. Iraq A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:18 A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the Spanish-American War up to our current conflict in the Middle East, could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World War I to satisfy Wilson’s ego led to a disastrous peace at Versailles, practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the years have prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th Century — Stalin, Samoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and many others — only to regret it once the unintended consequences became known. Many of those we supported turned on us, or our interference generated a much worse replacement — such as the Ayatollah in Iran. If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early presidents, we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face today. And if we had, we literally would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its policies of intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed policy — a foolish consistency — as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past 100 years, unfortunately will prevail despite its failure and huge costs. This hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows for gross errors in policy making. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went to war against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and his regime was connected to al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, but essentially had no military force at all, seems to be of little concern to those who took us to war. It was argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that a unilateral approach without the United Nations was proper under our notion of national sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S. Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. A correct declaration of war was rejected out of hand. Now with events going badly, the administration is practically begging the UN to take over the transition — except, of course, for the Iraqi Development Fund that controls the oil and all the seized financial assets. The contradictions and distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count. Those who wanted to institutionalize the doctrine of pre-emptive war were not concerned about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy. And for this, the American people and world peace will suffer. Iraq A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:20 Since no weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda have been found in Iraq, the explanation given now for having gone there was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Yet we hear now that the Iraqis are demanding immediate free elections not controlled by the United States. But our administration says the Iraqi people are not yet ready for free elections. The truth is that a national election in Iraq would bring individuals to power that the administration doesn’t want. Democratic elections will have to wait. Iraq A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:21 This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our will on others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we never hear serious discussions about changing our foreign policy of meddling and empire building, no matter how bad the results. Regardless of the human and financial costs for all the wars fought over the past hundred years, few question the principle and legitimacy of interventionism. Bad results, while only sowing the seeds of our next conflict, concern few here in Congress. Jingoism, the dream of empire, and the interests of the military-industrial complex generate the false patriotism that energizes supporters of our foreign entanglements. Direct media coverage of the more than 500 body bags coming back from Iraq is now prohibited by the administration. Seeing the mangled lives and damaged health of thousands of other casualties of this war would help the American people put this war in proper perspective. Almost all war is unnecessary and rarely worth the cost. Seldom does a good peace result. Since World War II, we have intervened 35 times in developing countries, according to the LA Times, without a single successful example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion: “American engagement abroad has not led to more freedom or more democracy in countries where we’ve become involved.” So far, the peace in Iraq — that is, the period following the declared end of hostilities — has set the stage for a civil war in this forlorn Western-created artificial state. A U.S.- imposed national government unifying the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our allies deserted us in this misadventure. Dumping the responsibility on the UN, while retaining control of the spoils of war, is a policy of folly that can result only in more Americans being killed. This will only fuel the festering wounds of Middle East hatred toward all Western occupiers. The Halliburton scandals and other military-industrial connections to the occupation of Iraq will continue to annoy our allies, and hopefully a growing number of American taxpayers. Iraq A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:22 I have a few suggestions on how to alter our consistently foolish policy in Iraq. Instead of hiding behind Wilson’s utopianism of making the world safe for democracy, let’s try a new approach: Iraq A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:23 -The internal affairs and the need for nation building in Iraq are none of our business. Iraq A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:26 -A representative republic, loosely held together with autonomy for each state or providence, is the only hope in a situation like this. But since we have systematically destroyed that form of government here in the United States, we can’t possibly be the ones who will impose this system on a foreign and very different land 6,000 miles away — no matter how many bombs we drop or people we kill. This type of change can come only with a change in philosophy, and an understanding of the true nature of liberty. It must be an intellectual adventure, not a military crusade. If for no other reason, Congress must soon realize that we no longer can afford to maintain an empire circling the globe. It’s a Sisyphean task to rebuild the Iraq we helped to destroy while our financial problems mount here at home. The American people eventually will rebel and demand that all job and social programs start at home before we waste billions more in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other forlorn lands around the world. Iraq A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:27 -The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the executive branch, so as not to wage war casually and without proper declaration. It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our political message around the world. A strict adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution would bring an immediate halt to our ill-advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman. We have been told that our effort in Iraq has been worth the 500-plus lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree — with great sadness for the families who have lost so much, and with so little hope for a good peace — I can only say, I disagree and hope I’m wrong. Iraq A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:29 When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy pervasive throughout the world, the neo-conservatives — who want to bring about various regime changes for other reasons — conveniently latch onto these threats and use them as the excuse and justification for our expanding military presence throughout the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. This is something they have been anxious to do all along. Already, plans are being laid by neo-conservative leaders to further expand our occupations to many other countries, from Central America and Africa to Korea. Whether it’s invading Iraq, threatening North Korea, or bullying Venezuela or even Russia, it’s now popular to play the terrorist card. Just mention terrorism and the American people are expected to grovel and allow the war hawks to do whatever they want to do. This is a very dangerous attitude. One would think that, with the shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation becoming more obvious every day, more Americans would question our flagrant and aggressive policy of empire building. The American people were frightened into supporting this war because they were told that Iraq had: “25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas; significant quantities of refined uranium; and special aluminum tubes used in developing nuclear weapons.” The fact that none of this huge amount of material was found, and the fact that David Kay resigned from heading up the inspection team saying none will be found, doesn’t pacify the instigators of this policy of folly. They merely look forward to the next regime change as they eye their list of potential targets. And they argue with conviction that the 500-plus lives lost were worth it. Attacking a perceived enemy who had few weapons, who did not aggress against us, and who never posed a threat to us does nothing to help eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks. If anything, deposing an Arab Muslim leader — even a bad one — incites more hatred toward us, certainly not less. This is made worse if our justification for the invasion was in error. It is safe to say that in time we’ll come to realize that our invasion has made us less safe, and has served as a grand recruiting tool for the many militant Muslim groups that want us out of their countries — including the majority of those Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East. Because of the nature of the war in which we find ourselves, catching Saddam Hussein, or even killing Osama bin Laden, are almost irrelevant. They may well simply become martyrs to their cause and incite even greater hatred toward us. Iraq Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War March 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 18:1 Mr. Speaker, today during the floor debate on H. Res. 557 (the Iraq resolution), I unfortunately was denied time to express my dissent on the policy of preemptive war in Iraq- even though I am a member of the International Relations committee. The fact that the committee held no hearings and did not mark up the resolution further challenges the fairness of the process. Iraq Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War March 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 18:7 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. Iraq Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:6 Falsely claiming that al-Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein and using this as a rallying cry to war has now resulted in al-Qaeda actually having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely claiming 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. As a result of this, al-Qaeda recruitment sadly has been dramatically boosted. Iraq Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:7 That Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was never in question, so reaffirming it here is unnecessary. What we must keep in mind, however, is that Saddam Hussein was attacking his own people and making war on Iran when he was essentially an ally of the United States — to the point where the U.S. Government assisted him in his war on Iran. This support is made all the more clear when viewing recently-declassified State Department cables in the days after Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as a U.S. envoy in 1983. Here are two such examples: Iraq Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:8 (1) United States Embassy in the United Kingdom Cable from Charles H. Price II to the Department of State. “Rumsfeld One-on-One Meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister,” December 21, 1983. Iraq Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:9 Presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz meet for two and one-half hours and agree that “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests,” including peace in the Persian Gulf, the desire to diminish the influence of Iran and Syria, and support for reintegrating Egypt, isolated since its unilateral peace with Israel, into the Arab world. Rumsfeld comments on Iraq’s oil exports, suggests alternative pipeline facilities, and discusses opposition to international terrorism and support for a fair Arab-Israeli peace. He and Aziz discuss the Iran-Iraq war “in detail.” Rumsfeld says that the administration wants an end to the war, and offers “our willingness to do more.” He mentions chemical weapons, possible escalation of fighting in the Gulf, and human rights as impediments to the U.S. government’s desire to do more to help Iraq, then shifts the conversation to U.S. opposition to Syria’s role in Lebanon. Iraq Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:10 (2) Department of State, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Action Memorandum from Richard W. Murphy to Lawrence S. Eagleburger. “EXIM [Export-Import] Bank Financing for Iraq” [Includes Letter From Lawrence S. Eagleburger to William Draper, Dated December 24, 1983], December 22, 1983. Iraq Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:11 Pursuant to the Reagan administration’s policy of increasing support for Iraq, the State Department advises Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger to urge the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financial credits. Eagleburger signs a letter to Eximbank saying that since Saddam Hussein had complied with U.S. requests, and announced the end of all aid to the principal terrorist group of concern to the U.S., and expelled its leader (Abu Nidal), “The terrorism issue, therefore, should no longer be an impediment to EXIM financing for U.S. sales to Iraq.” The financing is to signal U.S. belief in Iraq’s future economic viability, secure a foothold in the potentially large Iraqi market, and “go far to show our support for Iraq in a practical, neutral context.” Iraq Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:12 This resolution praises the new constitution for Iraq, written by U.S. experts and appointees. No one stops to consider the folly of the U.S. and the West believing they can write a constitution for a country with a completely different political and social history than ours. The constitution that the occupying forces have come up with is unworkable and absurd. It also will saddle the Iraqi people with an enormous and socialist-oriented government. In this, we are doing the Iraqi people no favor. Iraq Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 19:13 Article 14 of the new constitution grants the Iraqi people the “right” to “security, education, health care, and social security,” and affirms that “the Iraqi state . . . shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.” This sounds more like the constitution of the old USSR than that of a free and market-oriented society. Further, this constitution declares that Iraqi citizens “shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms” except by special license — denying the right of self defense to the Iraqi people just as their security situation continues to deteriorate. The Iraqi constitution also sets up a quota system for the Iraqi electoral system, stating that women should “constitute no less than one-quarter of the members of the National Assembly.” Is this kind of social engineering in Iraq on very left-liberal lines really appropriate? Are we doing the Iraqi people any favors with this approach? Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:6 The failure to understand the nature of the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, along with a pre-determined decision to initiate a pre-emptive war against Iraq, prompted our government to deceive the people into believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. The majority of the American people still contend the war against Iraq was justified because of the events of 9/11. These misinterpretations have led to many U.S. military deaths and casualties, prompting a growing number of Americans to question the wisdom of our presence and purpose in a strange foreign land 6,000 miles from our shores. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:7 The neo-conservative defenders of our policy in Iraq speak of the benefits that we have brought to the Iraqi people: removal of a violent dictator, liberation, democracy, and prosperity. If all this were true, the resistance against our occupation would not be growing. We ought to admit we have not been welcomed as liberators as was promised by the proponents of the war. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:8 Though we hear much about the so-called “benefits” we have delivered to the Iraqi people and the Middle East, we hear little talk of the cost to the American people: lives lost, soldiers maimed for life, uncounted thousands sent home with diseased bodies and minds, billions of dollars consumed, and a major cloud placed over U.S. markets and the economy. Sharp political divisions, reminiscent of the 1960s, are arising at home. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:9 Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing — while using the event to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11 — have dramatically compounded the problems all Americans and the world face. Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the guerilla attacks on New York and Washington, and since no weapons of mass destruction were found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq. The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:10 The proponents of the Iraqi war do not hesitate to impugn the character of those who point out the shortcomings of current policy, calling them unpatriotic and appeasers of terrorism. It is said that they are responsible for the growing armed resistance, and for the killing of American soldiers. It’s conveniently ignored that if the opponents of the current policy had prevailed, not one single American would have died nor would tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have suffered the same fate. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:11 Al Qaeda and many new militant groups would not be enjoying a rapid growth in their ranks. By denying that our sanctions and bombs brought havoc to Iraq, it’s easy to play the patriot card and find a scapegoat to blame. We are never at fault and never responsible for bad outcomes of what many believe is, albeit well-intentioned, interference in the affairs of others 6,000 miles from our shores. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:13 In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we continue alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with countries that are anything but democracies. We have a close alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, many other Arab dictatorships, and a new one with Kadafi of Libya. This should raise questions about the credibility of our commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq — which even our own government wouldn’t tolerate. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:15 Promoters of war too often fail to contemplate the unintended consequences of an aggressive foreign policy. So far, the anti-war forces have not been surprised with the chaos that has now become Iraq, or Iran’s participation — but even they cannot know all the long-term shortcomings of such a policy. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:16 In an eagerness to march on Baghdad, the neo-cons gloated — and I heard them — of the “shock and awe” that was about to hit the Iraqi people. It turns out that the real shock and awe is that we’re further from peace in Iraq than we were a year ago — and Secretary Rumsfeld admits his own surprise. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:17 The only policy now offered is to escalate the war and avenge the deaths of American soldiers—if they kill 10 of our troops, we’ll kill 100 of theirs. Up until now, announcing the number of Iraqi deaths has been avoided purposely, but the new policy announces our success by the number of Iraqis killed. But the more we kill, the greater the incitement of the radical Islamic militants. The harder we try to impose our will on them, the greater the resistance becomes. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:18 Amazingly, our occupation has done what was at one time thought to be impossible—it has united the Sunnis and Shiites against our presence. Although this is probably temporary, it is real and has deepened our problems in securing Iraq. The results are an escalation of the conflict and the requirement for more troops. This acceleration of the killing is called “pacification”—a bit of 1984 newspeak. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:19 The removal of Saddam Hussein has created a stark irony. The willingness and intensity of the Iraqi people to fight for their homeland has increased many times over. Under Saddam Hussein, essentially no resistance occurred. Instead of jubilation and parades for the liberators, we face much greater and unified efforts to throw out all foreigners than when Saddam Hussein was in charge. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:30 Our attention, all too often, was and still is directed outward toward distant lands. Now a significant number of our troops are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. We’ve kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, and thousands of troops remain in Europe and in over 130 other countries. This twisted philosophy of ignoring national borders while pursuing an empire created a situation where Seoul, Korea, was better protected than Washington, DC, on 9/11. These priorities must change, but I’m certain the 9/11 Commission will not address this issue. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:31 This misdirected policy has prompted the current protracted war in Iraq, which has gone on for 13 years with no end in sight. The al Qaeda attacks should not be used to justify more intervention; instead they should be seen as a guerilla attacks against us for what the Arabs and Muslim world see as our invasion and interference in their homelands. This cycle of escalation is rapidly spreading the confrontation worldwide between the Christian West and the Muslim East. With each escalation, the world becomes more dangerous. It is especially made worse when we retaliate against Muslims and Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11—as we have in Iraq—further confirming the suspicions of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and occupation than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:32 Those who claim that Iraq is another Vietnam are wrong. They can’t be the same. There are too many differences in time, place, and circumstance. But that doesn’t mean the Iraqi conflict cannot last longer, spread throughout the region and throughout the world—making it potentially much worse than what we suffered in Vietnam. In the first 6 years we were in Vietnam, we lost less than 500 troops. Over 700 have been killed in Iraq in just over a year. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:33 Our failure to pursue al Qaeda and bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan — and diverting resources to Iraq — have seriously compromised our ability to maintain a favorable world opinion of support and cooperation in this effort. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:34 Instead, we have chaos in Iraq while the Islamists are being financed by a booming drug business from U.S.-occupied Afghanistan. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:42 A “guns and butter” policy was flawed in the 60s, and gave us interest rates of 21% in the 70s with high inflation rates. The current “guns and butter” policy is even more intense, and our economic infrastructure is more fragile than it was back then. These facts dictate our inability to continue this policy both internationally and domestically. It is true, an unshakable resolve to stay the course in Iraq, or any other hot spot, can be pursued for years. But when a country is adding to its future indebtedness by over 700 billion dollars per year it can only be done with great economic harm to all our citizens. Iraq The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:44 Conclusion I’m sure the Commission will not deal with the flaw in the foreign policy endorsed by both parties for these many decades. I hope the Commission tells us why members of the bin Laden family were permitted, immediately after 9/11, to leave the United States without interrogation, when no other commercial or private flights were allowed. That event should have been thoroughly studied and explained to the American people. We actually had a lot more reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we did Iraq in connection with 9/11, but that country, obviously no friend of democracy, remains an unchallenged ally of the United States with few questions asked. Iraq Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:1 Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution as written. Like so many resolutions we have seen here on the Iraq war, this one is not at all what it purports to be. Were this really a resolution condemning abuse of prisoners and other detainees, I doubt anyone here would oppose it. Clearly the abuse and humiliation of those in custody is deplorable, and the pictures we have all seen over the past week are truly horrific. Iraq Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:3 Some of the soldiers in the photographs claim that their superior officers and the civilian contractors in charge of the interrogations forced them to pose this way. We cannot say with certainty what took place in Iraq’s prisons based on a few photographs. We have heard that some of those soldiers put in charge of prisons in Iraq were woefully unprepared for the task at hand. We have heard that 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 what appears to be reprehensible behavior? Not in the slightest, but it does suggest that we need to get all the facts before we draw conclusions. It is more than a little disturbing that this resolution does not even mention the scores of civilian contractors operating in these prisons at whom numerous fingers are being pointed as instigators of these activities. While these individuals seem to operate with impunity, this legislation before us all but convicts without trial those lowest in the chain of command. Iraq Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:4 But this resolution is only partly about the alleged abuses of detainees in Iraq. Though this is the pretext for the legislation, this resolution is really just an enthusiastic endorsement of our nation-building activities in Iraq. This resolution “expresses the continuing solidarity and support of the House of Representatives…with the Iraqi people in building a viable Iraqi government and a secure nation.” Also this resolution praises the “mission to rebuild and rehabilitate a proud nation after liberating it…” At least the resolution is honest in admitting that our current presence in Iraq is nothing more than a nation-building exercise. Iraq Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:5 Further, this resolution explicitly endorses what is clearly a failed policy in Iraq. I wonder whether anyone remembers that we did not go to war against Iraq to build a better nation there, or to bring about “improvements in… water, sewage, power, infrastructure, transportation, telecommunications, and food security…” as this resolution touts. Nor did those who urged this war claim at the time that the goals were to “significantly improv[e]…food availability, health service, and educational opportunities” in Iraq, as this legislation also references. No, the war was essential, they claimed, to stop a nation poised to use weapons of mass destruction to inflict unspeakable harm against the United States. Now historical revisionists are pointing out how wonderful our nation-building is going in Iraq, as if that justifies the loss of countless American and Iraqi civilian lives. Iraq Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 31:6 This resolution decries the fact that the administration had not informed Congress of these abuses and that the administration has not kept Congress in the information loop. Yet, Congress made it clear to the administration from the very beginning that Congress wanted no responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should have vigorously exercised its responsibilities from the very beginning. This means, first and foremost, that Congress should have voted on a declaration of war as required in the Constitution. Congress, after abrogating this responsibility in October 2002, now is complaining that it is in the dark. Indeed, who is to say that the legal ambiguity created by the Congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the notion that detainees need not be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, that governs the treatment of prisoners during a time of war? Until Congress takes up its constitutional responsibilities, complaints that the administration is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring hollow. Iraq Don’t Start a War with Iran! May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998. Iraq Don’t Start a War with Iran! May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:2 I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident - even to its most determined advocates -we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons…” Note the phrase “…use all appropriate means….” Iraq Don’t Start a War with Iran! May 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 32:3 Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions - just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed. Iraq H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons 17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998. Iraq H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons 17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:2 I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident — even to its most determined advocates — we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons . . .” Note the phrase “use all appropriate means.” Iraq H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons 17 May 2004    2004 Ron Paul 34:3 Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions — just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed. Iraq The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:1 Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Our allegiances to our allies and friends change constantly. For a decade, exiled Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi was our chosen leader-to-be in a new Iraq. Championed by Pentagon neocons and objected to by the State Department, Mr. Chalabi received more than 100 million U.S. taxpayer dollars as our man designated to be leader of a new Iraqi government. Iraq The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:2 But something happened on the way to the coronation. The State Department finally won out in its struggle with the Pentagon to dump Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, delivering Iraq to a competing exiled group, Dr. Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord. But never fear, both groups were CIA supported and both would be expected to govern as an American puppet. And that’s the problem. Under the conditions that currently exist in Iraq, American sponsorship of a government, or even United Nations approval, for that matter, will be rejected by a nationalistic Iraqi people. Iraq The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:3 We never seem to learn, and the Muslim Middle East never forgets. Our support for the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran has never endeared us to the Iranians. We’re supposed to be surprised to discover that our close confidant Ahmed Chalabi turns out to be a cozy pragmatic friend of Iran. The CIA may have questioned the authenticity of Iranian intelligence passed on to the U.S. by Chalabi, yet still this intelligence was used eagerly to promote the pro-war propaganda that so many in Congress and the nation bought into. And now it looks like the intelligence fed to Chalabi by Iran was deliberately falsified, but because it fit in so neatly with the neocon’s determination to remake the entire Middle East, starting with a preemptive war against Iraq, it was received enthusiastically. Iraq The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:11 The invisible economic costs are enormous but generally ignored. A policy of militarism and constant war has huge dollar costs, which contribute to the huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation, and economic dislocations. War cannot raise the standard of living for the average American. Participants in the military-industrial complex do benefit, however. Now the grand scheme of physically rebuilding Iraq using American corporations may well prove profitable to the select few with political connections. Iraq The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:17 This principle is the source of the solution for Iraq. We should suggest and encourage each of the three groups- the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds- to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they want to associate with a central government. Iraq The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq June 3, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 37:18 Instead of the incessant chant about us forcing democracy on others, why not read our history and see how thirteen nations joined together to form a loose-knit republic with emphasis on local self-government. Part of the problem with our effort to re-order Iraq is that the best solution is something we have essentially rejected here in the United States. It would make a lot more sense to concentrate on rebuilding our Republic, emphasizing the principles of private property, free markets, trade, and personal liberty here at home rather then pursuing war abroad. If this were done, we would not be a militaristic state spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and government benefits to the untold thousands of corporations and special interest would be denied. Iraq Bill Would Not Bring Middle East Peace 23 June 2004    2004 Ron Paul 40:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. As I have argued so many times in the past when legislation like this is brought to the Floor of Congress, the resolution before us is in actuality an endorsement of our failed policy of foreign interventionism. It attempts to create an illusion of our success when the truth is rather different. It seeks not peace in the Middle East, but rather to justify our continued meddling in the affairs of Israel and the Palestinians. As recent history should make clear, our sustained involvement in that part of the world has cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars yet has delivered no results. On the contrary, despite our continued intervention and promises that the invasion of Iraq would solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem the conflict appears as intractable as ever. Iraq Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies June 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 41:3 The stories of such activities are numerous. In 1953 the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah as dictator. This led to increasing anti-Americanism, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the kidnapping of Americans, the establishment of a hard-line Islamic regime hostile to the United States. In the 1980s the United States provided covert support to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war with Iran. Ten years later the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein and then 11 years after that the United States went to war again against Saddam’s Iraq. In the 1980s the United States provided weapons and training to the Taliban and what later became Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan as they sought to overthrow the communist government in power. Some 20 years later, that same Taliban and Osama bin Laden struck out against the United States. The United States then went to war against that Taliban government. Iraq Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies June 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 41:5 Additionally, as we now see so clearly, our intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. We were told of weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the United States. This proved to be false. We were told of Iraq’s relationship with Al-Qaeda. This proved to be false. The intelligence community relied heavily - perhaps almost exclusively — on Iraqi exile and convicted criminal Ahmad Chalabi to provide intelligence on Iraq and most of it turned out to be incorrect, perhaps intentionally misleading. Now we are told that Chalabi and his organization may have passed sensitive intelligence to Iran. We have read reports of secret pseudo-agencies set up in the Pentagon and elsewhere whose role appears to have been to politicize intelligence in order to force pre-determined conclusions. This does not serve the American people well. These are all by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in human lives and dollars. Yet from what little we can know about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would hope that we might begin coming up with new approaches to our intelligence needs. Iraq Opposing Aid To Pakistan 15 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 61:6 We are in Iraq to promote democracy, but here we send money to a military dictator who overthrew an elected government. And there just seems to be a tremendous inconsistency here. There was a military coup in 1999. There is the strong possibility that Osama bin Laden may well be in Pakistan. And to actually send money there, we are prohibited from really going in there and looking for Osama bin Laden; so we give the government of Pakistan money in the hopes that they will be helpful to us. Iraq Opposing Aid To Pakistan 15 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 61:9 But, specifically, is it a wise expenditure to put $300 million into the government of Pakistan with the pretense that we are promoting democracy by supporting a military dictator at the same time our young men are dying in Iraq promoting democracy? It does not add up, and it suggests that there are other motives for some of these expenditures and some of our motivations around the world. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:7 Both candidates supported the Iraq War and the continuation of it. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:30 Expenditures for foreign adventurism, as advocated by the neo-cons who direct our foreign policy, have received a shot in the arm with the recent election. Plans have been in the workings for expanding our presence throughout the Middle East and central Asia. Iran is the agreed-on next target for those who orchestrated the Iraq invasion and occupation. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:34 There are even more reasons to believe the current government status quo is unsustainable. As a nation dependent on the willingness of foreigners to loan us the money to finance our extravagance, we now are consuming 80% of the world’s savings. Though the Fed does its part in supplying funds by purchasing Treasury debt, foreign central banks and investors have loaned us nearly twice what the Fed has, to the tune of $1.3 trillion. The daily borrowing needed to support our spending habits cannot last. It can be argued that even the financing of the Iraq war cannot be accomplished without the willingness of countries like China and Japan to loan us the necessary funds. Any shift, even minor, in this sentiment will send chills through the world financial markets. It will not go unnoticed, and every American consumer will be affected. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:43 The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the election raises serious questions. The architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage. The question must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro-life position by those who supported moral values. The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands. The minister who preaches this mixed message of protecting life for some while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny. Too often the message from some of our national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone. They preach the need for vengeance and war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to us. It’s just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her newborn. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:44 To argue the invasion and occupation of Iraq is pro-life and pro-moral values is too much of a stretch for thinking Americans, especially conservative Christians. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:47 First : The United States should never go to war without an express Declaration by Congress. If we had followed this crucial but long-forgotten rule the lives lost in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq might have been prevented. And instead of making us less secure, this process would make us more secure. Absent our foreign occupations and support for certain governments in the Middle East and central Asia over the past fifty years, the 9-11 attack would have been far less likely to happen. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:49 Third : The best test (a test the chicken hawks who promoted the war refused to take) for those who are so eager to send our troops to die in no-win wars is this: “Am I willing to go; am I willing to be shot; am I willing to die for this cause; am I willing to sacrifice my children and grandchildren for this effort?” The bottom line: Is this Iraq war worth the loss of more than 1200 dead Americans, and thousands of severe casualties, with no end in sight, likely lasting for years and motivating even more suicidal attacks on innocent Americans here at home? Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:50 Fourth : Can we as a moral people continue to ignore the loss of innocent life on the other side? Can we as a nation accept the callousness of the war proponents regarding the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths? Can we believe these deaths are a mere consequence of our worthy effort to impose our will on an alien culture? Is it really our duty to sacrifice so much to pursue a questionable policy of dictating to others what we think is best for them? Can these deaths be dismissed as nothing more than “collateral damage,” and even applauded as proof of the professed progress we are making in our effort to democratize the Middle East? By ignoring the human costs of the conflict we invite problems, and the consequence of our actions will come back to haunt us. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:51 Fifth : Arguing that the war in Iraq is necessary for our national security is pure fiction; that it has something to do with the 9-11 attack or WMDs is nonsense. Our meddling in the Middle East and the rest of the world actually increases the odds of us being attacked again by suicidal guerrillas here at home. Tragically, this is something the neo-cons will never admit. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:52 Sixth : What kind of satisfaction can we achieve from the civil war we have instigated? A significant portion of the killing in Iraq now occurs amongst Iraqis themselves, at our urging. The country is in chaos, despite the assurances of our leaders. Even under the thug Saddam Hussein, Christians at least were protected by the government — whereas today their churches are bombed and many are struggling to escape the violence by fleeing to Syria. There is no evidence that our efforts in the Middle East have promoted life and peace. Tragically, no one expects the death and destruction in Iraq to end anytime soon. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:55 Though the election did not reflect a desire for us to withdraw from Iraq, it will be a serious mistake for those who want to expand the war into Syria or Iran to claim the election results were an endorsement of the policy of pre-emptive war. Yet that’s exactly what may happen if no one speaks out against our aggressive policy of foreign intervention and occupation. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:56 What can’t be ignored is that our activities in the Middle East have stirred up Russian and Chinese animosity. Their concern for their own security may force us to confront much greater resistance than we have met so far in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:57 A Chinese news agency recently reported that the Chinese government made a $70 billion investment commitment in Iran for the development of natural gas resources. This kind of investment by a neighbor of Iran will be of great significance if the neo-cons have their way and we drag Iran into the Afghanistan and Iraqi quagmire. The close alliance between Iranian Shias and their allies in Iraq makes a confrontation with Iran likely, as the neo-cons stoke the fire of war in the region. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:58 By failing to understand the history of the region and the nature of tribal culture, we have made victory virtually impossible. Tribal customs and religious beliefs that have existed for thousands of years instruct that family honor requires reciprocal killing for every member of the family killed by infidels/Americans. For each of the possible 100,000 Iraqis killed, there’s a family that feels a moral obligation to get revenge by killing an American, any American if possible. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:62 One of the great obstacles to our efforts in Iraq is pretending we’re fighting a country. We wrongly expect occupation and “democratization” to solve our problems. The notion that the Iraq war is part of our retaliation for the 9-11 attacks is a serious error that must be corrected if we are to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East and security here at home. Iraq Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:71 4. The Christian concept of just war rejects all the excuses given for marching off to Iraq with the intention of changing the whole region into a western-style democracy by force, with little regard for the cost in life and limb and the economic consequences here at home. Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:12 Today, we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over 20,000 casualties and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:33 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 percent of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle? Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:34 What if it turns out there are many more guerilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits? Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:35 What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim; and what is an acceptable price for doing good? Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:37 What if we discover that when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic law over Western secular law and want our troops removed? Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:38 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? Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:39 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? Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:41 What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden? What if we discover that democracy cannot be spread with force of arms? Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:43 What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of an Arab-Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them? Iraq America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:63 Tragically, on 9/11 our Air Force was better positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin and London than it was to protect Washington, D.C. and New York City. Moreover, our ill advised presence in the Middle East and our decade-long bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacks of 9/11. Iraq Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty 10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 20:3 Treaty proponents acted again in the 1990s, offering a separate “Agreement” that purported to amend the Treaty. This “corrected treaty” was also deemed unacceptable by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1994. Now we are once again facing a terribly flawed treaty that will hand over more of our sovereignty to a corrupt United Nations — just at a time when the extent of the United Nations’ corruption is becoming more evident through the oil for food scandal in Iraq. Iraq “Emergency” Supplemental Spending Bill 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 29:3 We are told that this is emergency spending, and that we therefore must not question this enormous expenditure. Does an emergency require sending billions of American taxpayers’ dollars overseas as foreign aid an emergency? This bill is filled with foreign aid spending. If we pass this ill-conceived legislation, we will spend $656 million for tsunami relief; $94 million for Darfur, Sudan; $150 million for food aid, most to Liberia and Sudan; $580 million for “peacekeeping” overseas; $582 million to build a new American embassy in Iraq; $76 million to build a new airport in Kuwait (one of the wealthiest countries on earth); $257 million for counter drug efforts in Afghanistan; $372 million for health, reconstruction, and alternative development programs to help farmers stop raising poppy; $200 million in economic aid for the Palestinians; $150 million for Pakistan (run by an unelected dictator); $200 million for Jordan; $34 million for Ukraine. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 30:2 I, for one, would admit I personally do not know what is best for the Lebanese and the Syrians, the Iraqis, or anybody else in the region; but I would argue the case that traditionally in this country up until probably the past 100 years, we took a different position on foreign policy. We took a position of nonintervention, one where we strived for neutrality, and we argued the case that we did not have any business in the internal affairs of other nations. No matter how well intended, there always seem to be ramifications. There seem to be unintended consequences. There seems to be a condition called “blow-back,” where it comes back and ends up where we suffer more than anybody else. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 30:3 For instance, we are in Iraq right now with all these good intentions. We have been there for a couple of years. We have spent over $200 billion, and this week they came out with a survey and they talked about the most dangerous city in the world and where security is the worst, and that city is not Beirut. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 30:4 In the last 2 years, every one of us would have rather have been in Beirut than we would have been in Iraq. And yet we have 140,000 troops there protecting the Iraqis and promoting freedom and liberty and elections, and it sounds good. But I think if we are honest with ourselves, the results are not nearly as wonderful as we would like them to be. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 30:5 The other thing that concerns me is that we lose credibility when we talk about what we want and what we will impose on other nations, because when we are claiming that the Lebanese cannot possibly have elections with the presence of foreign troops, at the same time we daily hear the bragging about the great election in Iraq where we had these 140,000 troops and total martial law in order for an election to take place. I am all for the elections, and I am a strong supporter of self-determination; but I do not correlate that with our policies. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 30:6 We saw demonstrations, first a little at a demonstration orchestrated in support of getting Syria out of Lebanon, and then there was a response to that where 500,000 showed up supporting Hezbollah claiming they supported Syria, and then of course following that there was a much bigger demonstration. So the people have had freedom to express themselves. But the one thing about all the demonstrations, we never saw a sign that said, America, come save us, come in here, tell us what to do, tell us what to do with our elections. They have had elections going on for you in Lebanon without any violence directed against Syrian troops as we see daily in Iraq. They have an election coming up in May. It has been scheduled all along. It is not like they have been avoiding them. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 30:11 In a conversation with a veteran of the CIA, an expert in this region, he explained, at least he sincerely believed, that we did a tremendous favor for Osama bin Laden, and that is to go into Iraq, expose ourselves, and then create the chaos of Iraq. Where there was no al Qaeda before, it is now a haven for al Qaeda. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 30:14 Just think of what the interference in Iraq has cost us: Over 1,500 men; over 11,000 battle casualties, with another 9,000 sent home because of illness; and over $200 billion. And there is no end in sight. Today we had to pass another $82 billion, which was not put into the budget, to continue this process. My argument is it comes not because we make a misjudgment, not that this resolution is simply a misjudgment of the day; it just is that is part of the misjudgments that we have made now for many, many decades in overall foreign policy. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 31:4 Once again, I ask the question, does that not raise the question of whether or not the elections in Iraq are as reliable, as is supposed? Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 31:7 We see civil strife precipitating a civil war in Iraq, and I think what our involvement here now is liable to lead to that type of situation, rather than peace and prosperity and elections. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 31:11 In Iraq in January of this year there was some polling done, an expression by the people on what they thought about foreign occupation. Eighty-two percent of the Sunnis, I guess understandably so, said that all foreign troops ought to leave, and 69 percent of the Shiites said all foreign troops ought to leave. I wonder why that is not important to anybody? Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 31:12 Instead, we are talking about occupation for years, about building 14 bases in Iraq. How long do we stay in these countries and why is it so necessary for us to be telling other people what to do and when to do it and how to do it and stirring up nothing but anti-American sentiment, while at the same time, even though our goals may be well-intentioned, they are never achieved? We just do not achieve them. And to think that the election under the conditions that we are condemning in Lebanon is the salvation, is the evidence that we are having tremendous achievement, I think is something that we are just pulling the wool over our eyes. Iraq Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2 16 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 31:13 John Adams gave us some pretty good advice about what we should do overseas. And I think that when we have resolutions like this, and we do have them continuously, and we have done them for decades. It was a preliminary to our invasion of Iraq starting specifically in 1988; But Adams advised, he made a suggestion and he made a statement, he says: “America goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.” Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:1 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? Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:2 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. Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:4 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. Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:5 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? Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:8 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. Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:9 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. Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:10 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? Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:11 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. Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:12 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. Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:13 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. Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:14 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. Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:15 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. Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:16 But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?” Iraq Who’s Better Off? April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 35:20 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. Iraq Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 36:4 Others who cheered the Pope’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these “pro-life supporters of war” 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 “enemy” of the United States. Iraq Introducing A Bill To Postpone The 2005 Round Of Defense Base Closure And Realignment 19 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 50:2 This round of base closure and realignment also should not go forward while we have hundreds of thousands of troops deployed overseas in major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The constant rotation of troops and other personnel to these major theaters of operations has caused great disruption, logistical strain, and terrible burdens on our servicemembers, their families, and the military itself. Iraq Bad Policy For Base Closings 25 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 52:4 It is claimed we will save $5 billion a year on base closings. We spend $5 billion a month in Iraq. We are spending nearly a billion dollars in building an embassy in Iraq. We are going to build four bases in Iraq that are going to be permanent, costing tens of billions of dollars. I think we have our priorities all messed up. Iraq The Hidden Cost of War June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:3 Costs are measured differently depending on whether or not a war is defensive or offensive in nature. Costs in each situation may be similar but are tolerated quite differently. The determination of those defending their homeland frequently is underestimated, making it difficult to calculate costs. Consider how long the Vietnamese fought and suffered before routing all foreign armies. For 85 years the Iraqis steadfastly have resisted all foreign occupation, and even their previous history indicates that meddling by western and Christian outsiders in their country would not be tolerated. Those who fight a defensive war see the cost of the conflict differently. Defenders have the goal of surviving and preserving their homeland, religious culture, and their way of life-- despite the shortcomings their prior leaders. Foreigners are seen as a threat. This willingness to defend to the last is especially strong if the society they fight for affords more stability than a war-torn country. Iraq The Hidden Cost of War June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:25 Iraq Iraq The Hidden Cost of War June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:26 There’s essentially no one, not even among the neo-con crowd, claiming that the Iraqi war is defensive in nature for America. Early on there was an attempt to do so, and it was successful to a large degree in convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was connected to al Qaeda. Now the justification for the war is completely different and far less impressive. If the current justification had been used to rally the American people and Congress from the beginning, the war would have been rejected. The fact that we are bogged down in an offensive war makes it quite difficult to extricate ourselves from the mess. Without the enthusiasm that a defensive war generates, prolonging the Iraq war will play havoc with our economy. The insult of paying for the war in addition to the fact that the war was not truly necessary makes the hardship less tolerable. This leads to domestic turmoil, as proponents become more vocal in demanding patriotic support and opponents become angrier for the burden they must bear. Iraq The Hidden Cost of War June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:37 The neo-conservatives who took us to war under false pretenses either didn’t know or didn’t care about the history and traditions of the Iraqi people. Surely they must have heard of an Islamic defensive jihad that is easy to promote when one’s country is being attacked by foreign forces. Family members have religious obligations to avenge all killings by foreign forces, which explains why killing insurgents only causes their numbers to multiply. This family obligation to seek revenge is closely tied to achieving instant eternal martyrdom through vengeful suicide attacks. Parents of martyrs do not weep as the parents of our soldiers do; they believe the suicide bombers and their families are glorified. These religious beliefs cannot simply be changed during the war. The only thing we can do is remove the incentives we give to the religious leaders of the jihad by leaving them alone. Without our presence in the Middle East, whether on the Arabian Peninsula or in Iraq, the rallying cry for suicidal jihadists would ring hollow. Was there any fear for our national security from a domestic terrorist attack by Islamists before we put a base in Saudi Arabia? Iraq The Hidden Cost of War June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:46 4. The Iraq war now has been going on for 15 years with no end in sight. Iraq Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:12 The first thing it would do is it would change the definition of terrorism as related to United Nations, and it would change the ability and the responsibility of the United Nations to become involved. Today it is currently understood that if there is an invasion of one country by another, the United Nations is called up, and they assume responsibility, and then they can put in troops to do whatever they think is necessary. But if this new policy is adopted, it will literally institutionalize the policy that was used by our own government to go into Iraq, and that is preemptive war, preemptive strikes, to go in and either support an insurgency, or in order to get rid of a regime, or vice versa. This is a significant change and an expansion of U.N. authority. I, quite frankly, think that this is a move in the wrong direction. Iraq Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul 16 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 66:14 So not only do I urge my colleagues to vote for my resolution to defund the United Nations, I urge my colleagues to look very cautiously at the U.N. reform bill, because there is a lot more in there than one might think. The one thing we do not need is John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz, the authors of our policy for regime change in Iraq, in charge of the same policy in the U.N. Iraq Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:1 Last week HJ Res 55 was introduced. This resolution requires the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The plan would be announced before December 31, 2005, with the withdrawal to commence no later than October 1, 2006. The media and opponents of this plan immediately-- and incorrectly-- claimed it would set a date certain for a total withdrawal. The resolution, hardly radical in nature, simply restates the policy announced by the administration. We’ve been told repeatedly that there will be no permanent occupation of Iraq, and the management will be turned over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. Iraq Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:2 The resolution merely pressures the administration to be more precise in its stated goals, and make plans to achieve them in a time frame that negates the perception we are involved in a permanent occupation of Iraq. Iraq Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:3 The sharpest criticism of this resolution is that it would, if implemented, give insurgents in Iraq information that is helpful to their cause and harmful to our troops. This is a reasonable concern, which we addressed by not setting a precise time for exiting Iraq. The critics inferred that the enemy should never have any hint as to our intentions. Iraq Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:4 Yet as we prepared to invade Iraq, the administration generously informed the Iraqis exactly about our plans to use “shock and awe” military force. With this information many Iraqi fighters, anticipating immediate military defeat, disappeared into the slums and hills to survive to fight another day-- which they have. Iraq Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:6 But what we convey or do not convey to the Iraqi people is not the most crucial issue. The more important issues are: Do the American people deserve to know more about our goals, the length of time we can expect to be in Iraq, and how many more Americans are likely to be killed and wounded; will there be a military draft; what is the likelihood of lingering diseases that our veterans may suffer (remember Agent Orange and Persian Gulf War Syndrome?); and how many more tax dollars are required to fight this war indefinitely? Iraq Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:7 The message insurgents need to hear and believe is that we are serious when we say we have no desire for a permanent occupation of Iraq. We must stick to this policy announced by the administration. Iraq Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:8 A plausible argument can be made that the guerillas are inspired by our presence in Iraq, which to them seems endless. Iraqi deaths, whether through direct U.S. military action, collateral damage, or Iraqis killing Iraqis, serve to inspire an even greater number of Iraqis to join the insurgency. Because we are in charge, we are blamed for all the deaths. Iraq Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution June 21, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 69:9 Continuing to justify our presence in Iraq because we must punish those responsible for 9/11 is disingenuous to say the least. We are sadly now at greater risk than before 9/11. We refuse to deal with our own borders while chastising the Syrians for not securing their borders with Iraq. An end game needs to be in place, and the American people deserve to know exactly what that plan is. They are the ones who must send their sons and daughters off to war and pay the bills when they come due. Iraq Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 71:6 Desecration is reserved for religious symbols. To me, why this is scary is because the flag is a symbol today of the State. Why is it, our side never seems to answer this question when we bring it up, why is it that we have the Red Chinese, Cuba, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein who support the position that you severely punished those who burn a flag? No, they just gloss over this. They gloss over it. Is it not rather ironic today that we have troops dying in Iraq, “spreading freedom” and, yet, we are here trying to pass laws similar to what Saddam Hussein had with regard to the flag? I just do not see where that makes a lot of sense. Iraq Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 71:7 Mr. Speaker, a question I would like to ask the proponents of this legislation is this: What if some military officials arrived at a home to report to the family that their son had just been killed in Iraq, and the mother is totally overwhelmed by grief which quickly turns to anger. She grabs a flag and she burns it? What is the proper punishment for this woman who is grieved, who acts out in this manner? We say, well, these are special circumstances, we will excuse her for that; or no, she has to be punished, she burned a flag because she was making a political statement. That is the question that has to be answered. What is the proper punishment for a woman like that? I would say it is very difficult to mete out any punishment whatsoever. Iraq Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 71:15 Congress has models of flag desecration laws. For example, Saddam Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Iraq SUICIDE TERRORISM July 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 84:1 Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing. Iraq SUICIDE TERRORISM July 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 84:5 Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world’s leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq’s suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:1 Many reasons have been given for why we fight and our youth must die in Iraq. The reasons now given for why we must continue this war bear no resemblance to the reasons given to gain the support of the American people and the United States Congress prior to our invasion in March of 2003. Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. This rationale, now proven grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we’re told we must honor the fallen by “completing the mission.” To do otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded. Any lack of support for “completing the mission” is said, by the promoters of the war, to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops. They insist the only way one can support the troops is to never waver on the policy of nation building, no matter how ill-founded that policy may be. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the mission, of which they so reverently speak, has changed constantly from the very beginning. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:2 Though most people think this war started in March of 2003, the seeds were sown many years before. The actual military conflict, involving U.S. troops against Iraq, began in January 1991. The prelude to this actually dates back over a hundred years, when the value of Middle East oil was recognized by the industrialized West. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:3 Our use of troops to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was the beginning of the current conflict with Muslim fundamentalists who have been, for the last decade, determined to force the removal of American troops from all Muslim countries-- especially the entire Arabian Peninsula, which they consider holy. Though the strategic and historic reasons for our involvement in the Middle East are complex, the immediate reasons given in 2002 and 2003 for our invasion of Iraq were precise. The only problem is they were not based on facts. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:4 The desire by American policymakers to engineer regime change in Iraq had been smoldering since the first Persian Gulf conflict in 1991. This reflected a dramatic shift in our policy, since in the 1980s we maintained a friendly alliance with Saddam Hussein as we assisted him in his war against our arch nemesis, the Iranian Ayatollah. Most Americans ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless dictator with biological and chemical weapons technology. We heard no complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and Shiites, or the ruthless war he waged against Iran. Our policy toward Iraq played a major role in convincing Saddam Hussein he had free reign in the Middle East, and the results demonstrate the serious shortcomings of our foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed now for over a hundred years. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:5 In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:6 Shortly after the new administration took office in January 2001, this goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein quickly morphed into a policy of remaking the entire Middle East, starting with regime change in Iraq. This aggressive interventionist policy surprised some people, since the victorious 2000 campaign indicated we should pursue a foreign policy of humility, no nation building, reduced deployment of our forces overseas, and a rejection of the notion that we serve as world policemen. The 9/11 disaster proved a catalyst to push for invading Iraq and restructuring the entire Middle East. Though the plan had existed for years, it quickly was recognized that the fear engendered by the 9/11 attacks could be used to mobilize the American people and Congress to support this war. Nevertheless, supposedly legitimate reasons had to be given for the already planned pre-emptive war, and as we now know the “intelligence had to be fixed to the policy.” Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:7 Immediately after 9/11 the American people were led to believe that Saddam Hussein somehow was responsible for the attacks. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not friends, was kept from the public by a compliant media and a lazy Congress. Even today many Americans still are convinced of an alliance between the two. The truth is Saddam Hussein never permitted al Qaeda into Iraq out of fear that his secular government would be challenged. And yet today we find that al Qaeda is now very much present in Iraq, and causing chaos there. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:9 Behind the scenes many were quite aware that Israel’s influence on our foreign policy played a role. She had argued for years, along with the neo-conservatives, for an Iraqi regime change. This support was nicely coordinated with the Christian Zionists’ enthusiasm for the war. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:14 Publicly oil is not talked about very much, but behind the scenes many acknowledge this is the real reason we fight. This is not only the politicians who say this. American consumers have always enjoyed cheap gasoline and want it kept that way. The real irony is that the war has reduced Iraqi oil production by one-half million barrels per day and prices are soaring-- demonstrating another unintended economic consequence of war. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:15 Oil in the Middle East has been a big issue since the industrial revolution, when it was realized that the black substance bubbling out of the ground in places like Iraq had great value. It’s interesting to note that in the early 20 th century Germany, fully aware of oil’s importance, allied itself with the Turkish Ottoman Empire and secured the earliest rights to drill Iraqi oil. They built the Anatalia railroad between Baghdad and Basra, and obtained oil and mineral rights on twenty kilometers on each side of this right-of-way. World War I changed all this, allowing the French and the British to divide the oil wealth of the entire Middle East. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:16 The Versailles Treaty created the artificial nation of Iraq, and it wasn’t long before American oil companies were drilling and struggling to participate in the control of Middle East oil. But it was never smooth sailing for any occupying force in Iraq. After WWI, the British generals upon arriving to secure “their” oil said: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.” Not long afterward a jihad was declared against Britain and eventually they were forced to leave. The more things change, the more they stay the same! Too bad we are not better at studying history. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:19 Finally, after years of plotting and maneuvering, the neo-conservative plan to invade Iraq came before the U.S. House in October 2002 to be rubber-stamped. Though the plan was hatched years before, and the official policy of the United States government was to remove Saddam Hussein ever since 1998, various events delayed the vote until this time. By October the vote was deemed urgent, so as to embarrass anyone who opposed it. This would make them politically vulnerable in the November election. The ploy worked. The resolution passed easily, and it served the interests of proponents of war in the November election. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:20 The resolution, HJ RES 114, explicitly cited the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 as one of the reasons we had to go to war. The authorization granted the President to use force against Iraq cited two precise reasons: Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:21 1. “To defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and” Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:22 2. “Enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:27 Pursuing this war merely to save face, or to claim it’s a way to honor those who already have died or been wounded, is hardly a reason that more people should die. We’re told that we can’t leave until we have a democratic Iraq. But what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it looks like the majority wants as their form of government-- and women, Christians, and Sunnis are made second-class citizens? It’s a preposterous notion and it points out the severe shortcomings of a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:29 But could it be, as it had been for over a hundred years prior to our invasion, that oil really is the driving issue behind a foreign presence in the Middle East? It’s rather ironic that the consequence of our intervention has been skyrocketing oil prices, with Iraqi oil production still significantly below pre-war levels. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:32 Since no logical answers can be given for why we fight, it might be better to talk about why we should not fight. A case can be made that if this war does not end soon it will spread and engulf the entire region. We’ve already been warned that war against Iran is an option that remains on the table for reasons no more reliable than those given for the pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Let me give you a few reasons why this war in Iraq should not be fought. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:35 It’s virtually impossible to beat a determined guerrilla resistance to a foreign occupying force. After 30 years the Vietnam guerillas, following unbelievable suffering, succeeded in forcing all foreign troops from their homeland. History shows that Iraqi Muslims have always been determined to resist any foreign power on their soil. We ignored that history and learned nothing from Vietnam. How many lives, theirs and ours, are worth losing to prove the tenacity of guerilla fighters supported by a large number of local citizens? Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:37 So far our policies inadvertently have encouraged the development of an Islamic state, with Iranian-allied Shiites in charge. This has led to Iranian support for the insurgents, and has placed Iran in a position of becoming the true victor in this war as its alliance with Iraq grows. This could place Iran and its allies in the enviable position of becoming the oil powerhouse in the region, if not the world, once it has control over the oil fields near Basra. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:40 There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological or chemical or nuclear weapons, so we can be assured the Iraqis pose no threat to anyone, certainly not to the United States. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:41 No evidence existed to show an alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war, and ironically our presence there is now encouraging al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to move in to fill the vacuum we created. The only relationship between Iraq and 9/11 is that our policy in the Middle East continues to increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our homeland. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:43 Eventually, we will come to realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America’s resources to promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed policy. Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet women in the U.S. at that time were not allowed to vote. Democracy, where the majority dictates the rules, cannot protect minorities and individual rights. And in addition, using force to impose our will on others almost always backfires. There’s no reason that our efforts in the 21 st century to impose a western style government in Iraq will be any more successful than the British were after World War I. This especially can’t work if democracy is only an excuse for our occupation and the real reasons are left unrecognized. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:46 The mess we face in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and the threat of terrorism within our own borders, are not a result of the policies of this administration alone. Problems have been building for many years, and have only gotten much worse with our most recent policy of forcibly imposing regime change in Iraq. We must recognize that the stalemate in Korea, the loss in Vietnam, and the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan all result from the same flawed foreign policy of interventionism that our government has pursued for over 100 years. It would be overly simplistic to say the current administration alone is responsible for the mess in Iraq. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:50 Congress at any time can prevent or stop all undue foreign entanglements pursued by the executive branch merely by refusing to finance them. The current Iraq war, now going on for 15 years, spans the administration of three presidents and many congresses controlled by both parties. This makes Congress every bit as responsible for the current quagmire as the president. But the real problem is the acceptance by our country as a whole of the principle of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations when unrelated to our national security. Intervention, no matter how well intended, inevitably boomerangs and comes back to haunt us. Minding our own business is not only economical; it’s the only policy that serves our national security interests and the cause of peace. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:51 The neo-conservatives who want to remake the entire Middle East are not interested in the pertinent history of this region. Creating an artificial Iraq after World War I as a unified country was like mixing water and oil. It has only led to frustration, anger, and hostilities-- with the resulting instability creating conditions ripe for dictatorships. The occupying forces will not permit any of the three regions of Iraq to govern themselves. This is strictly motivated by a desire to exert control over the oil. Self-determination and independence for each region, or even a true republican form of government with a minimalist central authority is never considered-- yet it is the only answer to the difficult political problems this area faces. The relative and accidental independence of the Kurds and the Shiites in the 1990s served those regions well, and no suicide terrorism existed during that decade. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:52 The claim that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq would cause chaos is not proven. It didn’t happen in Vietnam or even Somalia. Even today, the militias of the Kurds and the Shiites may well be able to maintain order in their regions much better than we can currently. Certainly the Sunnis can take care of themselves, and it might be in their best interests for all three groups not to fight each other when we leave. One thing for sure: if we left no more young Americans would have to die for an indefinable cause. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:53 Instead, we have been forcing on the people of Iraq a type of democracy that, if implemented, will mean an Islamic state under Sharia’ law. Already we read stories of barbers no longer being safe shaving beards; Christians are threatened and forced to leave the country; and burqas are returning out of fear. Unemployment is over 50%, and oil production is still significantly below pre-war levels. These results are not worth fighting and dying for. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:57 This policy has led to excessive spending overseas and neglect at home. It invites enemies to attack us, and drains the resources needed to defend our homeland and care for our own people. We are obligated to learn something from the tragedy of Katrina about the misallocation of funds away from our infrastructure to the rebuilding of Iraq after first destroying it. If ever there was a time for us to reassess our policy of foreign interventionism, it is today. It’s time to look inward and attend to the constitutional needs of our people, and forget about the grandiose schemes to remake the world in our image through the use of force. These efforts not only are doomed to fail, as they have for the past one hundred years, but they invite economic and strategic military problems that are harmful to our national security interests. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:59 The most important misjudgment regarding Iraq that must be dealt with is the charge that Muslim terrorists attack us out of envy for our freedoms, our prosperity, and our way of life. There is no evidence this is the case. On the contrary, those who have extensively researched this issue conclude that the #1 reason suicide terrorists attack anywhere in the world is because their land is occupied by a foreign military power. Pretending otherwise and constantly expanding our military presence in more Arab and Muslim countries as we have since 1990 has only increased the danger of more attacks on our soil, as well as in those countries that have allied themselves with us. If we deny this truth we do so at our own peril. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:61 Those who want to continue this war accuse those who lost loved ones in Iraq, and oppose the war, of using the dead for personal political gain. But what do the war proponents do when they claim the reason we must fight on is to honor the sacrifice of the military personnel we lost by completing the mission? The big difference is that one group argues for saving lives, while the other justifies more killing. And by that logic, the additional deaths will require even more killing to make sure they too have not died in vain. Therefore, the greater number who have died, the greater is the motivation to complete the mission. This defies logic. This argument to persevere has been used throughout history to continue wars that could and should have ended much sooner. This was true for World War I and Vietnam. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:64 1. We must soon, and Congress can do this through the budget process, stop the construction of all permanent bases in Iraq and any other Muslim country in the region. Think of how we would react if the Chinese had the military edge on us and laid claims to the Gulf of Mexico, building bases within the U.S. in order to promote their superior way of life. Isn’t it ironic that we close down bases here at home while building new ones overseas? Domestic bases might well promote security, while bases in Muslim nations only elicit more hatred toward us. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:65 2. The plans for the biggest U.S. embassy in the world, costing nearly 1 billion dollars, must be canceled. This structure in Baghdad sends a message, like the military bases being built, that we expect to be in Iraq and running Iraq for a long time to come. Iraq Why We Fight September 8, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 95:66 3. All military forces, especially on the Arabian Peninsula, must be moved offshore at the earliest time possible. All responsibility for security and control of the oil must be transferred to the Iraqis from the United States as soon as possible, within months not years. Iraq The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane September 15, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 98:3 Congress reacted to Katrina in the expected irresponsible manner. It immediately appropriated over $60 billion with little planning or debate. Taxes won’t be raised to pay the bill-- fortunately. There will be no offsets or spending reductions to pay the bill. Welfare and entitlement spending is sacrosanct. Spending for the war in Iraq and the military-industrial complex is sacrosanct. There is no guarantee that gracious foreign lenders will step forward, especially without raising interest rates. This means the Federal Reserve and Treasury will print the money needed to pay the bills. The sad truth is that monetary debasement hurts poor people the most-- the very people we saw on TV after Katrina. Inflating our currency hurts the poor and destroys the middle class, while transferring wealth to the ruling class. This occurs in spite of good intentions and misplaced compassion. Iraq Staying or Leaving October 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 102:1 Supporters of the war in Iraq, as well as some non-supporters, warn of the dangers if we leave. But isn’t it quite possible that these dangers are simply a consequence of having gone into Iraq in the first place, rather than a consequence of leaving? Isn’t it possible that staying only makes the situation worse? If chaos results after our departure, it’s because we occupied Iraq, not because we left. Iraq Staying or Leaving October 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 102:2 The original reasons for our pre-emptive strike are long forgotten, having been based on false assumptions. The justification given now is that we must persist in this war or else dishonor those who already have died or been wounded. We’re also told civil strife likely will engulf all of Iraq. Iraq Staying or Leaving October 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 102:4 Civil strife, if not civil war, already exists in Iraq-- and despite the infighting, all factions oppose our occupation. Iraq Staying or Leaving October 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 102:5 The insistence on using our military to occupy and run Iraq provides convincing evidence to our detractors inside and outside Iraq that we have no intention of leaving. Building permanent military bases and a huge embassy confirms these fears. Iraq Staying or Leaving October 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 102:7 In truth, our determined presence in Iraq actually increases the odds of regional chaos, inciting Iran and Syria while aiding Osama bin Laden in his recruiting efforts. Leaving Iraq would do the opposite-- though not without some dangers that rightfully should be blamed on our unwise invasion rather than our exit. Many experts believe bin Laden welcomed our invasion and occupation of two Muslim countries. It bolsters his claim that the U.S. intended to occupy and control the Middle East all along. This has galvanized radical Muslim fundamentalists against us. Osama bin Laden’s campaign surely would suffer if we left. Iraq The Iraq War 18 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 104:2 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of the preemptive war against Iraq say it was justified by the unprovoked 9/11 attacks. They claim that Muslim hatred for our democracy, freedom, Western values, and prosperity inspired the 19 suicide terrorists who attacked us on that dreadful day. Iraq The Iraq War 18 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 104:3 Opponents of the war argue that al Qaeda radicals who planned the attacks were not allies of Saddam Hussein, and that Iraq posed no threat to our national security. They further argue that our occupation of Iraq now inspires a growing number of radical Islamists to join the ranks of al Qaeda and support its war against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq The Iraq War 18 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 104:4 But proponents of the war insist that our presence in Iraq is not what motivates al Qaeda to attack us, since we had no troops on Iraqi soil on 9/11; and yet al Qaeda attacked us anyway. Iraq The Iraq War 18 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 104:6 We should look at the facts if we want to understand why a growing number of Iraqis and Muslims worldwide are now motivated to join the insurgents in a guerrilla resistance that includes suicide terrorism. It is true that there were no U.S. troops in Iraq on 9/11, but it is also true that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with that attack. Iraq The Iraq War 18 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 104:7 In addition, we have been bombing Iraq since 1991, more than 10 years, on a regular basis. Stiff economic sanctions imposed on Iraq for over a decade by the U.S. and Britain caused extreme suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, many of them children. Iraq U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:5 The “opportunity” refers to the long- held neoconservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq. Iraq U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:6 This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad. Iraq U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:7 Congress already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions placed on Syria last year. Harmful sanctions, as applied to Iraq in the 1990s, inevitably represent a major step toward war since they bring havoc to so many innocent people. Syria already has been charged with developing weapons of mass destruction based on no more evidence than was available when Iraq was similarly charged. Iraq U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:9 Condemning Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange considering most of the world sees our 150,000 troops in Iraq as unwarranted foreign intervention. Syrian troops were far more welcome in Lebanon. Iraq U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:10 Secretary Rice likewise sees the problem in Syria that we helped to create as an opportunity to advance our Middle Eastern agenda. In recent testimony she stated that it was always the administration’s intent to redesign the greater Middle East, and Iraq was only part of that plan. And once again we have been told that all options are still on the table for dealing with Syria, including war. Iraq U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:11 The statement that should scare all Americans and the world is the assurance by Secretary Rice that the President needs no additional authority from Congress to attack Syria. She argues that authority already has been granted by the resolutions on 9/11 and Iraq. This is not true, but if Congress remains passive to the powers assumed by the executive branch, it will not matter. As the war spreads, the only role for the Congress will be to provide funding lest they be criticized for not supporting the troops. In the meantime, the Constitution and our liberties here at home will be further eroded as more Americans die. Iraq U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:15 Is Iraq not yet a headache for the proponents of the shock and awe policy? Are 2,000 lives lost not enough to get their attention? How many hundreds of billions of dollars must be drained from our economy before it is noticed? Is it still plausible that deficits do not matter? Is the apparent victory for Iran in the Shiite theocracy we have created in Iraq not yet seen as a disturbing consequence of the ill- fated Iraq regime change effort? When we have our way with the next election in Lebanon and Hezbollah becomes a governing party, what do we do then? Iraq U.S. Interfering In Middle East 26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 113:16 If our effort to destabilize Syria is no more successful than our efforts in Iraq, then what? If destabilizing Syria leads to the same in Iran, what are our options? If we cannot leave now, we will surely not leave then. We will be told we must stay to honor the fallen to prove the cause was just. Iraq We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:1 We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S. led regime change-- in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: “Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.” This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunity” refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq. Iraq We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:2 This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad. Iraq We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:3 Congress already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions placed on Syria last year. Harmful sanctions, as applied to Iraq in the 1990s, inevitably represent a major step toward war since they bring havoc to so many innocent people. Syria already has been charged with developing weapons of mass destruction based on no more evidence than was available when Iraq was similarly charged. Iraq We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:5 Condemning Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange, considering most of the world sees our 150,000 troops in Iraq as an unwarranted foreign occupation. Syrian troops were far more welcome in Lebanon. Iraq We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:6 Secretary Rice likewise sees the problems in Syria-- that we helped to create-- as an opportunity to advance our Middle Eastern agenda. In recent testimony she stated that it was always the administration’s intent to redesign the greater Middle East, and Iraq was only one part of that plan. And once again we have been told that all options are still on the table for dealing with Syria-- including war. Iraq We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:7 The statement that should scare all Americans (and the world) is the assurance by Secretary Rice that the President needs no additional authority from Congress to attack Syria. She argues that authority already has been granted by the resolutions on 9/11 and Iraq. This is not true, but if Congress remains passive to the powers assumed by the executive branch it won’t matter. As the war spreads, the only role for Congress will be to provide funding lest they be criticized for not supporting the troops. In the meantime, the Constitution and our liberties here at home will be further eroded as more Americans die. Iraq We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:11 Is Iraq not yet enough of a headache for the braggarts of the shock and awe policy? Iraq We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:15 Is the apparent victory for Iran in the Shiite theocracy we’ve created in Iraq not yet seen as a disturbing consequence of the ill-fated Iraq regime change effort? Iraq We Have Been Warned October 26, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 114:17 If our effort to destabilize Syria is no more successful than our efforts in Iraq, then what? Iraq Big Lies and Little Lies November 2, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 116:1 Scooter Libby has been indicted for lying. Many suspect Libby, and perhaps others, deliberately outed Joe Wilson’s wife as a covert CIA agent. This was done to punish and discredit Wilson for bringing attention to the false information regarding Iraq’s supposed efforts to build a nuclear weapon — information made public in President Bush’s State of the Union message in January 2003. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was chosen to determine if this revelation regarding Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife, violated the Intelligence Identification Protection Act. The actual indictment of Libby did not claim such a violation occurred. Instead, he has been charged with lying and participating in a cover-up during the two-year investigation. I believe this is a serious matter that should not be ignored, but it is not an earth-shattering event. Iraq Big Lies and Little Lies November 2, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 116:3 There are much more serious charges of lying and cover-ups that deserve congressional attention. The country now knows the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on information that was not factual. Congress and the people of this country were misled. Because of this, more than 2,000 U. S. troops and many innocent people have died. Tens of thousands have been severely wounded, their lives forever changed if not totally ruined. Iraq Big Lies and Little Lies November 2, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 116:6 The decision to go to war is profound. It behooves Congress to ask more questions and investigate exactly how the President, Congress, and the people were misled into believing that invading Iraq was necessary for our national security. Iraq Big Lies and Little Lies November 2, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 116:11 If lies were told to justify the invasion of Iraq, the American people deserve to know the truth. Congress has a responsibility to seek this truth and change our policies accordingly. The sooner this is done the better. Iraq Congress Erodes Privacy November 16, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 121:8 Congress is not much better when it comes to protecting against the erosion of the centuries-old habeas corpus doctrine. By declaring anyone an “enemy combatant”—a totally arbitrary designation by the President— the government can deny an individual his right to petition a judge or even speak with an attorney. Though there has been a good debate on the insanity of our policy of torturing prisoners, holding foreigners and Americans without charges seems acceptable to many. Did it never occur to those who condemn torture that unlimited detention of individuals without a writ of habeas corpus is itself torture—especially for those who are totally innocent? Add this to the controversial worldwide network of secret CIA prisons now known of for 2 years, and we should be asking ourselves what we have become as a people. Recent evidence that we’re using white phosphorus chemical weapons in Iraq does nothing to improve our image. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:5 The American people are becoming more aware of the serious crisis this country faces. Their deep concern is reflected in the current mood in Congress. The recent debate over Iraq shows the parties are now looking for someone to blame for the mess we’re in. It’s a high stakes political game. The fact that a majority of both parties and their leadership endorsed the war, and accept the same approach toward Iran and Syria, does nothing to tone down the accusatory nature of the current blame game. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:6 The argument in Washington is over tactics, quality of intelligence, war management, and diplomacy, except for the few who admit that tragic mistakes were made and now sincerely want to establish a new course for Iraq. Thank goodness for those who are willing to reassess and admit to these mistakes. Those of us who have opposed the war all along welcome them to the cause of peace. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:9 Polls indicate ordinary Americans are becoming uneasy with our prolonged war in Iraq, which has no end in sight. The fact that no one can define victory precisely, and most American see us staying in Iraq for years to come, contribute to the erosion of support for this war. Currently 63% of Americans disapprove of the handling of the war, and 52% say it’s time to come home. 42% say we need a foreign policy of minding our own business. This is very encouraging. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:10 The percentages are even higher for the Iraqis. 82% want us to leave, while 67% claim they are less secure with our troops there. Ironically, our involvement has produced an unusual agreement among the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, the three factions at odds with each other. At the recent 22-member Arab League meeting in Cairo, the three groups agreed on one issue: they all want foreign troops to leave. At the end of the meeting an explicit communiqué was released: “We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable, and the establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the armed forces… that will allow them to guard Iraq’s borders and get control of the security situation.” Since the administration is so enamored with democracy, why not have a national referendum in Iraq to see if the people want us to leave? Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:11 After we left Lebanon in the 1980s, the Arab League was instrumental in brokering an end to that country’s 15-year civil war. Its chances of helping to stop the fighting in Iraq are far better than depending on the UN, NATO, or the United States. This is a regional dispute that we stirred up but cannot settle. The Arab League needs to assume a lot more responsibility for the mess that our invasion has caused. We need to get out of the way and let them solve their own problems. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:12 Remember, once we left Lebanon suicide terrorism stopped and peace finally came. The same could happen in Iraq. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:14 The blame game is a political event, designed to avoid the serious philosophic debate over our foreign policy of interventionism. The mistakes made by both parties in dragging us into an unwise war are obvious, but the effort to blame one group over the other confuses the real issue. Obviously Congress failed to meet its constitutional obligation regarding war. Debate over prewar intelligence elicits charges of errors, lies, and complicity. It is now argued that those who are critical of the outcome in Iraq are just as much at fault, since they too accepted flawed intelligence when deciding to support the war. This charge is leveled at previous administrations, foreign governments, Members of Congress, and the United Nations-- all who made the same mistake of blindly accepting the prewar intelligence. Complicity, errors of judgment, and malice are hardly an excuse for such a serious commitment as a pre-emptive war against a non-existent enemy. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:15 Both sides accepted the evidence supposedly justifying the war, evidence that was not credible. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Iraq had no military capabilities. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were not allies (remember, we were allies of both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden), and Saddam Hussein posed no threat whatsoever to the United States or his neighbors. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:16 We hear constantly that we must continue the fight in Iraq, and possibly in Iran and Syria, because, “It’s better to fight the terrorists over there than here.” Merely repeating this justification, if it is based on a major analytical error, cannot make it so. All evidence shows that our presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries benefits al Qaeda in its recruiting efforts, especially in its search for suicide terrorists. This one fact prompts a rare agreement among all religious and secular Muslim factions; namely, that the U.S. should leave all Arab lands. Denying this will not keep terrorists from attacking us, it will do the opposite. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:17 The fighting and terrorist attacks are happening overseas because of a publicly stated al Qaeda policy that they will go for soft targets-- our allies whose citizens object to the war like Spain and Italy. They will attack Americans who are more exposed in Iraq. It is a serious error to conclude that “fighting them over there” keeps them from fighting us “over here,” or that we’re winning the war against terrorism. As long as our occupation continues, and American forces continue killing Muslims, the incentive to attack us will grow. It shouldn’t be hard to understand that the responsibility for violence in Iraq-- even violence between Iraqis-- is blamed on our occupation. It is more accurate to say, “the longer we fight them over there the longer we will be threatened over here.” Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:20 The “we’re all better off without Saddam Hussein” cliché doesn’t address the question of whether the 2,100 troops killed or the 20,000 wounded and sick troops are better off. We refuse to acknowledge the hatred generated by the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who are written off as collateral damage. Are the Middle East and Israel better off with the turmoil our occupation has generated? Hardly! Honesty would have us conclude that conditions in the Middle East are worse since the war started: the killing never stops, and the cost is more than we can bear-- both in lives and limbs lost and dollars spent. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:22 By limiting the debate to technical points over intelligence, strategy, the number of troops, and how to get out of the mess, we ignore our continued policy of sanctions, threats, and intimidation of Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and Syria. Even as Congress pretends to argue about how or when we might come home, leaders from both parties continue to support the policy of spreading the war by precipitating a crisis with these two countries. Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:26 Death and destruction; 2,100 Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick or wounded, plus tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire; Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:31 Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile training field not previously available to them; Iraq The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:33 Our military industrial complex thrives in Iraq without competitive bids; Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:5 The American people are becoming more aware of the serious crisis this country faces. Their deep concern is reflected in the current mood in Congress. The recent debate over Iraq shows the parties are now looking for someone to blame for the mess we are in. It is a high-stakes political game. The fact that a majority of both parties and their leadership endorsed the war and accept the same approach towards Syria and Iran does nothing to tone down the accusatory nature of the current blame game. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:6 The argument in Washington is over tactics, quality of intelligence, war management, and diplomacy, except for the few who admit that tragic mistakes were made and now sincerely want to establish a new course for Iraq. Thank goodness for those who are willing to reassess and admit to those mistakes. Those of us who have opposed the war all along welcome them to the cause of peace. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:9 Polls indicate ordinary Americans are becoming uneasy with our prolonged war in Iraq which has no end in sight. The fact that no one can define victory precisely, and most Americans see us staying in Iraq for years to come, contributes to the erosion of support for this war. Currently, 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the handling of the war, and 52 percent say it is time to come home. Forty-two percent say we need a foreign policy of minding our own business. This is very encouraging. The percentages are even higher for the Iraqis. Eighty-two percent want us to leave, and 67 percent claim they are less secure with our troops there. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:10 Ironically, our involvement has produced an unusual agreement among the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, the three factions at odds with each other. At the recent 22-member Arab League meeting in Cairo, the three groups agreed on one issue. They all want foreign troops to leave. At the end of the meeting, an explicit communique was released: “We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable and the establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the armed forces that will allow them to guard Iraq’s borders and get control of the security situation.” Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:11 Since the administration is so enamored of democracy, why not have a national referendum in Iraq to see if the people want us to leave? After we left Lebanon in the 1980s, the Arab League was instrumental in brokering an end to that country’s 15-year civil war. Its chances of helping to stop the fighting in Iraq are far better than depending on the United Nations, NATO, or the United States. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:12 This is a regional dispute that we stirred up, but cannot settle. The Arab League needs to assume a lot more responsibility for the mess that our invasion has caused. We need to get out of the way and let them solve their own problems. Remember, once we left Lebanon, suicide terrorism stopped and peace finally came. The same could happen in Iraq. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:17 But complicity, errors of judgment, and malice are hardly an excuse for such a serious commitment as a preemptive war against a nonexistent enemy. Both sides accepted the evidence supposedly justifying the war, evidence that was not credible. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Iraq had no military capabilities. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were not allies. Remember, we were once allies of both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And Saddam Hussein posed no threat whatsoever to the United States or his neighbors. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:18 We hear constantly that we must continue the fight in Iraq and possibly in Iran and Syria because it is better to fight the terrorists over there than here. Merely repeating this justification, if it is based on a major analytical error, cannot make it so. All evidence shows that our presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries benefits al Qaeda in its recruiting efforts, especially in its search for suicide terrorists. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:19 This one fact prompts a rare agreement among all religious and secular Muslim factions, namely, that the U.S. should leave all Arab lands. Denying this will not keep terrorists from attacking us. It will do the opposite. The fighting and terrorist attacks are happening overseas because of a publicly stated al Qaeda policy that they will go for soft targets: our allies, whose citizens object to the war, like Spain and Italy. They will attack Americans who are more exposed in Iraq. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:20 It is a serious error to conclude that fighting them over there keeps them from fighting us over here or that we are winning the war against terrorism. As long as our occupation continues and American forces continue killing Muslims, the incentive to attack us will grow. It should not be hard to understand that the responsibility for violence in Iraq, even violence between Iraqis, is blamed on our occupation. It is more accurate to say the longer we fight them over there, the longer we will be threatened over here. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:22 The “we are all better off without Saddam Hussein” cliche does not address the question of whether the 2,100- plus American troops killed or the 20,000 wounded and sick troops are better off. We refuse to acknowledge the hatred generated by the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who are written off as collateral damage. Are the Middle East and Israel better off with the turmoil our occupation has generated? Hardly. Honesty would have us conclude that conditions in the Middle East are worse since the war started. The killing never stops, and the cost is more than we can bear both in lives and limbs lost and dollars spent. In spite of the potential problems that may or may not come from our withdrawal, the greater mistake was going in in the first place. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:23 We need to think more about how to avoid these military encounters rather than dwelling on the complications that result when we meddle in the affairs of others with no moral or legal authority to do so. We need less blame game and more reflection about the root cause of our aggressive foreign policy. By limiting the debate to technical points over intelligence, strategy, the number of troops and how to get out of the mess, we ignore our continued policy of sanctions, threats and intimidation of Iraqi neighbors, Iran and Syria. Even as Congress pretends to argue about how or when we might come home, leaders from both parties continue to support the policy of spreading the war by precipitating a crisis with these two countries. The likelihood of agreeing about who deliberately or innocently misled Congress, the media and the American people is virtually nil. Maybe historians at a later date will sort out the whole mess. The debate over tactics and diplomacy will go on, but that only serves to distract from the important issue of policy. Few today in Congress are interested in changing from our current accepted policy of intervention to one of strategic independence. No nation building, no policing the world, no dangerous alliances. But the result of this latest military incursion into a foreign country should not be ignored. Those who dwell on pragmatic matters should pay close attention to the result so far. Iraq Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:24 Since March 2003, we have seen death and destruction, 2,100-plus Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick and wounded, plus tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire. A Shiite theocracy has been planted. A civil war has erupted. Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed. Osama bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed. Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile training field not previously available to them. Suicide terrorism spurred on by our occupation has significantly increased. Our military-industrial complex thrives in Iraq without competitive bids. True national defense and the voluntary Army have been undermined. Iraq The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:43 There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling his oil in euros, yet many believe this was the reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory in Iraq, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The euro was immediately abandoned. Iraq The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:48 Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, does not seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam and this recent history, there is little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us, but that did not stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern-day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she has made plans for pricing oil in euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion. Iraq The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:49 It is not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s connection to 9/11, were false. Iraq The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:55 Once again, Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically and militarily if necessary. These arguments are based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq. Iraq The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:56 Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire, which includes the entire DOD budget of $450 billion, plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the backing of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system, like Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela, become targets of our plans for regime change. Iraq The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:58 But real threats come from our political adversaries who are capable of confronting us militarily yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That is why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran’s posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq War. Iraq The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:60 The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large number of Americans, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran. Iraq The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:61 But then again our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11. Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding euros for oil. Iraq The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:88 Comparing the current scandal to the big one, the Abramoff types are petty thieves. The government deals in trillions of dollars, the Abramoffs in mere millions. Take a look at the undeclared war we are bogged down in 6,000 miles from our shore. We have spent $300 billion already, but Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz argues that the war will actually cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion when it is all over. That is trillions, not billions. Even that figure is unpredictable, because we may be in Iraq for another year or 10. Who knows. Iraq Don’t Rush To War In Iran 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 4:2 this resolution. I see this resolution somewhat like some of the resolutions that we debated and passed prior to our commitment to go into Iraq. As a matter of fact, some of the language is very similar. If you substitute the word “Iraq” for “Iran,” you would find out that these concerns are very similar. Iraq Don’t Rush To War In Iran 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 4:4 My concern for this type of language and these plans is that nothing ever changes. This is the type of thing that occurred before. Of course, we went into Iraq, and yet today the success in Iraq is very questionable. Fifty-five percent of the American people say it was a mistake to have gone into Iraq. Only forty percent of the people support staying in Iraq. Attitudes have shifted now since the success in Iraq has been so poor. Iraq Don’t Rush To War In Iran 16 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 4:5 We went into Afghanistan to look for Osama bin Laden, and we sort of got distracted. We have forgotten about him just about completely. Instead we went into Iraq. Though the Iraq war is not going well, all of a sudden we are looking to take on another burden, another military mission. I find some things in the resolution that are very confrontational because it invokes sanctions. People say, well, sanctions are not that bad. That is no shooting or killing. But sanctions and boycotts and embargoes, these are acts of war. And, of course, many times our administration has expressed the sentiment that if necessary we are going to use force against Iran; we are going to start bombing. And why do we follow this policy? Especially since it literally helps the radicals in Iran. This mobilizes them. There is an undercurrent in Iran that is sympathetic to America, and yet this brings the radicals together by this type of language and threats. There is no doubt that our policy helps the hard-liners. Iraq Amendment No. 9 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 2 16 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 18:4 The major point I make here is by cutting $1 billion from the military portion of the bill it makes the point that we spend way too much on military operations. We spend more on military operations around the world than all the other countries of the world put together. And we do not have a lot to show for it. When you think about what has happened in Afghanistan, the problems there, what is happening in Iraq and the potential problems that are coming in Iran; yet the money is continuing to be spent in this reckless manner. Iraq Making The World Safe For Christianity 28 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 19:3 We seem to never learn from our mistakes. Today’s neocons are as idealistically misled and aggressive in remaking the Middle East as the Wilsonian do-gooders. Even given the horrendous costs of the Iraq War and the unintended consequences that plague us today, the neocons are eager to expand their regime-change policy to Iran by force. Iraq Making The World Safe For Christianity 28 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 19:5 Our bombs and guns have not changed the fact that the new puppet Afghan Government still follows Sharia law. The same loyalty to Sharia exists in Iraq where we are trying hard to stabilize things, and all this is done in the name of spreading democracy. Iraq Making The World Safe For Christianity 28 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 19:6 The sad fact is that even under the despicable rule of Saddam Hussein, Christians were safer in Iraq than they are today. Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister was a practicing Christian. Today, thousands of Christians have fled Iraq following our occupation to countries like Jordan and Syria. Those Christians who have remained in Iraq fear for their lives every day. That should tell us something about the shortcomings of a policy that presumes to make the world safe for democracy. Iraq Making The World Safe For Christianity 28 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 19:12 Our occupation and influence in the holy lands of the Middle East will always be suspect. This includes all the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Naively believing otherwise will guarantee continuing hostility in Iraq. Iraq College Access and Opportunity Act 30 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 20:5 I am convinced that some promoters of the Academic Bill of Rights would be unhappy if, instead of fostering greater debate, this bill silences discussion of certain topics. Scan the websites of some of the organizations promoting the Academic Bill of Rights and you will also find calls for silencing critics of the Iraq war and other aspects of American foreign policy. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it has been 3 years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course, now almost everybody knows there were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges that there was no connection. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:2 Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why the U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous, huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. There are also funding a new $1 billion embassy, the largest in the world. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:3 The significant question we must ask ourselves is, what have we learned from these 3 years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder, if the past 3 years were nothing more than a bad dream and our Nation suddenly awakened, how many would for national security reasons urge the same invasion? Or would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the 3- year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars? Conceivably, we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and, most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. casualties would not have occurred. My guess is 99 percent of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:6 It is amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the neoconservatives are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It is frightening to see how easily Congress, the media and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:7 Since 2001, we have spent over $300 billion and occupied two Muslim nations, Afghanistan and Iraq. We are poorer, but certainly not safer, for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ringleader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch- enemy, more than our own. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:8 The long time neocon goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandoned the search for Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission, justified by misrepresentation of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and his ability to attack us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the current chaos in Iraq, chaos that many describe as a civil war. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:9 Saddam Hussein is out of power, and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis who dream of stability long for his authoritarian rule. But, once again, Saddam Hussein’s removal benefited the Iranians, who considered Saddam Hussein an arch-enemy. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:10 Our obsession with democracy, which is clearly conditional when one looks at our response to the recent Pakistani elections, will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:12 Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march towards a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures? Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran, whether planned or accidental, will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country number three. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:13 All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten. Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well-planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran’s radicals. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:15 For the past 3 years, it has been inferred that, if one is not in support of the current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or Kruschev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far superior to confront an enemy, and are less costly and far less dangerous, especially when there is no evidence that our national security is being threatened. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:16 Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the Iraq war 3 years ago, they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it is time to come home. Yet, the majority still cling to the propaganda that they are there because of the 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that is worth the risk to life and limb. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:18 I worry that before we can finish the war we are in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “Enough already.” The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It is too bad we cannot learn from our mistakes. This time, there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the U.N. before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that all options remain on the table, and there is little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there is little resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:19 It is astonishing that after 3 years of bad results and tremendous expense there is little indication, we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation-building, policing the world, protecting our oil still constitutes an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties. It is already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmud Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel, and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:20 Iran’s history is being ignored just as we ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those toward Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this President took office. In 1953, our CIA, with the help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratic- elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh. We placed in power the Shah. He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that, we protected him. That is, until 1979. We even provided him with Iran’s first nuclear reactor. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:22 During the 1980s, we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States, he immediately preceded to do so. We, in a way, encouraged him to do it almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course, this time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden, our friendly ally, Saddam Hussein, became our arch enemy. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:24 For whatever reasons the neoconservatives might give, they are bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting these charges at face value, yet it seems the propaganda is working since few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for U.N. sanctions against her. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:30 The demand for U.N. sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The Iran Freedom Support Act, H.R. 282 passed in the International Relations Committee and recently the House passed H. Con. Res. 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no doubt, the neoconservative warriors are still in charge and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a preemptive attack on Iran, never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in a Civil War. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:31 Serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the 3- year occupation of Iraq. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:33 Even though ElBaradei and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons, refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible. Let there be no doubt, though, the words “regime change” are not found in the bill. That is precisely what they are talking about. Neoconservative Michael Ladine, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in favor of the Iraq Freedom Support Act stated it plainly. “I know some members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language and the context of the Iraq Freedom Support Act and its close relative in the Senate can clearly see that this is, in fact, the essence of the matter. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:36 Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift toward confrontation in Iran’s policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called “aggressive” policies of the Iranian government. We are 7,000 miles from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors? We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times invaded any neighboring country. This provocation is so unnecessary, costly and dangerous. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:37 Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shiia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that they might well resort to terrorist attacks on us here at home. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be easily destroyed. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:38 One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure our oil supplies. This backfired badly. Production in Iraq is down 50 percent, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil at $120 a barrel and gasoline at $6 a gallon. The obsession the neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who plan these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:39 Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more than once that all options are on the table. The sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype to our preemptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” It looks to me like the Congress and the country is open to being fooled once again. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:40 Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq War are now highly critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation. But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian government. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:43 Commonsense telling us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military confrontation with Iran. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:48 Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate, because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional. Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its success and against the Iraq War because of its failure and cost is not enough. We must once again, understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting Nation building. We must stop trying to police the world and, instead, embrace noninterventionism as the proper moral and constitutional foreign policy of our country. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:49 The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already, and Iraqi civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable counts. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:50 The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war. Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizens’ rights. Extreme nationalism is common during war. Signs of this are now apparent. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:56 Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now present. Hopefully, we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode, as they did in the 1960s. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:61 Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class. The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current monetary system with the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Iraq Iran, The Next Neocon Target 5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:62 The theory and significance of “peak oil” is believed to be an additional motivating factor for the United States and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been protecting our oil interests in the Middle East for nearly 100 years. With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia moving in to this region to consume more control alarms those who don’t understand how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. Supporters of the military efforts to maintain control over large regions of the world to protect oil fail to count the real cost of energy once the DOD budget is factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will rise significantly. Iraq Gold And The U.S. Dollar 25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:45 Foreign policy contributes to the crisis when the spending to maintain our worldwide military commitments become prohibitive, and inflationary pressures accelerate. But the real crisis hits when the world realizes the king has no clothes in that the dollar has no backing, and we face a military setback even greater than we already are experiencing in Iraq. Our token friends may quickly transform into vocal enemies once the attack on the dollar begins. Iraq Gold And The U.S. Dollar 25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:61 Energy prices are rising for many reasons: inflation, increased demand from China and India, decreased supply resulting from our invasion into Iraq, anticipated disruption of supplies as we push regime change in Iran, regulatory restrictions on gasoline production, government interference in the free market development of alternative fuels, and subsidies to Big Oil, such as free leases and grants for research and development. Iraq Gold And The U.S. Dollar 25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:62 Interestingly, the cost of oil and gas is actually much higher than we pay at the retail level. Much of the DOD budget is spent protecting “our” oil supplies; and if such spending is factored in, gasoline probably costs us more than $5 a gallon. The sad irony is that the military efforts to secure cheap oil supplies inevitably backfire and actually curtail supplies and boost prices at the pump. The waste and fraud in issuing contracts to large corporations for work in Iraq only adds to price increases. Iraq Gold And The U.S. Dollar 25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:87 Will we one day complain about false intelligence, as we have with the Iraq war? Will we complain about not having enough information to address monetary policy after it is too late? Iraq Disadvantages To Intervention 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 26:3 There are two types of foreign policy we can have: interventionism, where we tell other people what to do; and the more traditional American foreign policy of nonintervention and not using force to tell other people what to do. The policy of foreign intervention has been around a long time, and it is not only one party that endorses it. In 1998 we had a similar bill come up to the floor. It was called the Iraqi Freedom Act. And that was the preliminary stages of leading to a war, which is a very unpopular, very expensive, and deadly war going on right now in Iraq. So this is a similar bill moving in that direction. Iraq Disadvantages To Intervention 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 26:5 But I have no qualms about the goals of the authors of this legislation. They would like to see freedom in Iran. I would, too. It is just that I believe the use of force backfires on us, and when we use force such as sanctions and subsidizing and giving money to dissidents, what we really do is the opposite of what we want. Those individuals who are trying to promote more freedom in Iran actually are forced to ally themselves with the radicals, so instead of undermining the system, it has made it worse. It is always argued that they will welcome us when we march in as liberators, and Iraq proved that that was not the case. Iran won’t be much better. Iraq Disadvantages To Intervention 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 26:8 There are always more costs than anybody imagines. Iraq was supposed to cost $50 billion. It is now hundreds of billions of dollars. There is economic harm done. There is inflation that it causes. Yet it continues, and instead of coming to an end, it tends to spread. That is why I fear this so much. Iraq Bill Authorizes Use Of Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 28:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, this bill authorizes strong sanctions as well as funding to dissident groups inside Iraq to overthrow that government. In my interpretation that is the use of force, and I yield 6 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio. Iraq Bombing Iran 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 30:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, there has been talk in the media and elsewhere about the necessity of bombing Iran, and we are talking today about regime change, which is an act of force, yet some of us believe we are acting too hastily. Others deny that; that something imminently is going to happen. But I want to read a little quote here from John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence. He says, “Our assessment at the moment is that even though we believe that Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon, we believe that it is still a number of years before they are likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or put into a nuclear weapon; perhaps into the next decade. So I think it is important that this issue be kept in perspective.” This is John Negroponte. And I think those who are so eager to pass this legislation and move toward regime change are moving in the wrong direction too hastily, and there are a lot of analogies to this and to Iraq, so we caution you about that. Iraq Bill Would Authorize Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 31:5 Yes, we quote Ahmadinejad about his vitriolic statements, and they are horrible, but how do you think they interpret other statements when we say we are going to wipe their regime off the face of the Earth? We are going to have regime change. So from their viewpoint we are saying the same thing, and we should not be blinded to that and pretend, because our language is not quite as violent. We are saying the same thing, because look at the result of the violence in Iraq as a result of our efforts of regime change. Iraq Bill Would Authorize Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 31:6 Now, one of the major authors of the Iraqi war, a leader of the neoconservative movement, came before the committee when this resolution was debated and when we had hearings on it. I want to read a quote from him because it clarifies this issue. The quote comes from Michael Ledeen, and he wants regime change. This is what he had to say. “There is much that is praiseworthy in the Iran Freedom Support Act. I think it can be improved by more openly embracing a policy of regime change in Iran and allocating an adequate budget to demonstrate our seriousness in this endeavor. I know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language, and that is what I have done, and content of the Iran Freedom Support Act and its close relative in the Senate can clearly see that it is, in fact, the essence of the matter. You can’t have freedom in Iran, that is, we can’t have our way, without bringing down the mullahs.” Iraq Bill Would Authorize Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 31:7 That is an outright threat. That is the testimony of a neoconservative who led us and promoted and pushed the war in Iraq, and nothing would please him and others who are behind this type of resolution to see regime change. There is no denial of that. Iraq Bill Would Authorize Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 31:8 The question is how do we do it? Are we going to do it pussyfooting around? Or are we going to use force and violence? We did, we used bombs for a long time against Iraq. But we had a bill in 1998 that said explicitly we are going to get rid of the Iraqi government, and it took a few years to get the war going. Iraq Bill Would Authorize Force 26 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 31:11 But I am asking you to reconsider the fact that moving in this direction is the same thing as we did against Iraq, and it won’t do us any good. It is going to cost us a lot of money, and it is going to cost a lot of lives, and it is un-American. It is not constitutional. It is not moral. We should not pursue this type of foreign policy. We should take care of ourselves, and we should be more friendly with nations. We should be willing to trade. And if you are concerned about the world, why not set a good example? When our house is clean, when we have a good democracy and a worthy Republic, and we do well, believe me, they will want to emulate us. Iraq What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices 2 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 32:4 First, we must reassess our foreign policy and announce some changes. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to secure our oil. Before the Iraq war, oil was less than $30 a barrel. Today it is over $70. The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Since 2002, oil production in Iraq has dropped 50 percent. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine, and we have been unable to prevent them. Soaring gasoline prices are a giant, unintended consequence of our invasion, pure and simple. Iraq What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices 2 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 32:6 We must quickly announce we do not seek war with Iran, remove the economic sanctions against her, and accept her offer to negotiate a diplomatic solution to the impacts. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach to Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 a barrel. Iraq Resolution To Finish Job In Iraq 16 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 45:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 861. The resolution declares that “the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq.” That’s a big job. Ask the British, who tried and failed to do this in the 20th century, what a big job it is. While President Bush has said repeatedly that when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down, this resolution asserts that our troops will remain in Iraq indefinitely. That is unfortunate. Iraq Resolution To Finish Job In Iraq 16 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 45:3 Our approach is so reasonable that I believe 75 percent of the American public would strongly support it. Our amendment would simply require the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq in a reasonable time frame. It does not give a specific date to complete a withdrawal. It does not say to be out in 30 days or else. It just says try to define an end point for the benefit of everybody. This is exactly in line with what the President himself has stated; it supports his statements. Iraq Resolution To Finish Job In Iraq 16 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 45:4 We are not taking a radical approach. It is a very modest approach, a very mild approach. The reason that there was not a vote on our amendment is that we would have won. So this entire exercise is designed for politics. And men are dying. Women are dying! And we’re going broke — we spend $300 million every single day in Iraq, at the same time programs here at home are being denied. So we’re going to have a financial crisis, and we’ll have a political crisis. Iraq Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally 22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 48:8 As my colleagues are well aware, I am strongly opposed to the United Nations and our participation in that organization. Every Congress I introduce a bill to get us out of the U.N., but I also recognize problems with our demanding to have it both ways. On one hand, we pretend to abide by the U.N. and international laws, such as when Congress cited the U.N. on numerous occasions in its resolution authorizing the President to initiate war against Iraq. On the other hand, we feel free to completely ignore the terms of treaties, and even unilaterally demand a change in the terms of the treaties without hesitation. This leads to an increasing perception around the world that we are no longer an honest broker, that we are not to be trusted. Is this the message we want to send at this critical time? Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:31 It is, however, in foreign affairs that governments have most abused fear to generate support for an agenda that under normal circumstances would have been rejected. For decades our administrations have targeted one supposed “Hitler” after another to gain support for military action against a particular country. Today we have three choices termed the axis of evil: Iran, Iraq or North Korea. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:35 We should be ever vigilant when we hear the fear mongers preparing us for the next military conflict our young men and women will be expected to fight. We’re being told of the great danger posed by Almadinejad in Iran and Kim Jung Il in North Korea. Even Russia and China bashing is in vogue again. And we’re still not able to trade with or travel to Cuba. A constant enemy is required to expand the state. More and more news stories blame Iran for the bad results in Iraq. Does this mean Iran is next on the hit list? Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:37 Fear and Anger over Iraq Though the American people are fed up for a lot of legitimate reasons, almost all polls show the mess in Iraq leads the list of why the anger is so intense. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:39 The anger over the Iraq war is multifaceted. Some are angry believing they were lied to in order to gain their support at the beginning. Others are angry that the forty billion dollars we spend every year on intelligence gathering failed to provide good information. Proponents of the war too often are unable to admit the truth. They become frustrated with the progress of the war and then turn on those wanting to change course, angrily denouncing them as unpatriotic and un-American. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:40 Those accused are quick to respond to the insulting charges made by those who want to fight on forever without regard to casualties. Proponents of the war do not hesitate to challenge the manhood of war critics, accusing them of wanting to cut and run. Some war supporters ducked military service themselves while others fought and died, only adding to the anger of those who have seen battle up close and now question our campaign in Iraq. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:41 When people see a $600 million embassy being built in Baghdad, while funding for services here in the United States is hard to obtain, they become angry. They can’t understand why the money is being spent, especially when they are told by our government that we have no intention of remaining permanently in Iraq. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:42 The bickering and anger will not subside soon, since victory in Iraq is not on the horizon and a change in policy is not likely either. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:43 The neoconservative instigators of the war are angry at everyone: at the people who want to get out of Iraq; and especially at those prosecuting the war for not bombing more aggressively, sending in more troops, and expanding the war into Iran. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:47 But no one is allowed to ask the obvious. How have the 2,500 plus deaths, and the 18,500 wounded, made us more free? What in the world does Iraq have to do with protecting our civil liberties here at home? What national security threat prompted America’s first pre-emptive war? How does our unilateral enforcement of UN resolutions enhance our freedoms? Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:52 They refuse to accept that the real reason for our invasion and occupation of Iraq was not related to terrorism. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:60 War supporters cannot see that for every Iraqi killed, another family turns on us — regardless of who did the killing. We are and will continue to be blamed for every wrong done in Iraq: all deaths, illness, water problems, food shortages, and electricity outages. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:65 The 2002 resolution allowing the president to decide when and if to invade Iraq is an embarrassment. The Constitution authorizes only Congress to declare war. Our refusal to declare war transferred power to the president illegally, without a constitutional amendment. Congress did this with a simple resolution, passed by majority vote. This means Congress reneged on its responsibility as a separate branch of government, and should be held accountable for the bad policy in Iraq that the majority of Americans are now upset about. Congress is every bit as much at fault as the president. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:69 The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community. Iraq Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:81 Today we constantly hear innuendos and direct insults aimed at those who dare to challenge current foreign policy, no matter how flawed that policy may be. I would suggest it takes more courage to admit the truth, to admit mistakes, than to attack others as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the war in Iraq. Iraq Noninterventionist Policy — Part 1 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 61:7 The policy of interventionism, which I object to, really doesn’t work. It is well intended, and we have these grandiose plans and schemes to solve the problems of the world, but if you are really honest with yourself and you look at the success and failure, it doesn’t have a good record. I mean, are you going to defend the great victory in Korea, the great victory in Vietnam? And on and on. The great victory in Iraq? Iraq Noninterventionist Policy — Part 1 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 61:9 The other reason why I strongly object to interventionism is it costs a lot of money. And someday we will have to deal with that. Supplemental bills come up now to the tune of tens of billions, and next year, already, they are planning to come up with another $100 billion for our intervention overseas. But it is off the regular budgetary process, so it doesn’t meet the budgetary restraints that we are supposed to follow. So it becomes emergency funding, although we have been in Iraq for 3 years, and with plans to stay endlessly. We are building permanent bases in Iraq. So there is a lot of cost, and eventually that will come home to haunt us, and it already has. Iraq Noninterventionist Policy — Part 1 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 61:10 And then there is the problem of unintended consequences. We went into Iraq for all kinds of reasons, some disproven, and all well intended, and who knows what the real motivations were. But one thing was that we would gain access to oil, and oil would be produced and would help pay the bills. Yet oil, when we went into Iraq was $28 a barrel. Now it is $75 a barrel. That is an unintended consequence. Iraq Noninterventionist Policy — Part 1 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 61:11 We have done more to fall into the trap of what Osama bin Laden wanted in Iraq than anything else. And actually we have helped Iran. Iran is stronger. They have probably already more influence with the grass roots, the democratic process in Iraq, than we do. Those are the kind of unintended consequences that, on principle, I strongly object to. Iraq Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:4 I have talked to a lot of military people, a lot of CIA people, who actually believe this is a possibility within months. And this is the reason I have such great concern about what is happening in this area of the country, because if us going into Iraq didn’t go so well, can anybody imagine what is going to happen when the bombs start to fall on Iran? I think it is going to be catastrophic. And there has been talk on television this past weekend, the beginning of World War III. And this war is about to spread, and this is the reason that I oppose this resolution, because, deep down in my heart, I believe that what we do here helps to provoke things and agitate things and bring us closer to a greater conflict. And I am just arguing that there is an alternative other than violence to settle some of these problems. Iraq Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:7 You can’t deny it. There are more radicals today than there were 2 or 3 years ago. And the reason why I am worried about this is we are now getting the information about the reaction to 9/11. 9/11 occurred, and the immediate response by many of our leaders and the administration said, let’s go to Iraq. People would say, well, why Iraq? Well, we have been planning on it all along. This is the opportunity. Iraq Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:9 There are others who suggest that this crisis has come about not out of our strength, but out of our weakness. If Hezbollah and Hamas has deliberately done this, they might have calculated we have been stretched fairly thin around the world and with Iraq, and know that a lot of the American people and the taxpayers are getting tired of the war, so they may have seen this as a sign of weakness on our part. But then the “neocons” say, yeah, that may well be true, that is why we have to be tougher than ever. We have got to unleash the bombs. We have got to consider nuclear weapons, and back and forth and back and forth, until one day we are going to get ourselves in such a fix that World War III will be here and it will be irrevocable. Iraq Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:10 And there are some people who sort of like this idea. There are some “neocons” who thrive on chaos, because their theory is they want regime change. They want regime change in Syria, and they want regime change in Iran. They wanted it in Iraq. And we are, by gosh, we are going to have regime change, and they are going to be our friends and they are going to be democrats. We are going to have democratic elections. Iraq Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:16 So, yes, it was well intended to have regime change in Iraq. But what has it gotten us? Iraq Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:29 And what does it do to the cost of oil? Inflation pushes the cost of oil up. That should be a concern to everybody. And at the same time, the production of the oil didn’t work. I mean, the oil production went down in Iraq. Iraq Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:30 What happens if this happens to be true? I actually pray that I am completely wrong about this. And you can say, well, you are, so don’t sweat it. But what if I am right? It is frightening, because if this leads to bombing in Iran, look for oil at $150 a barrel. Then the American people will wake up. They will say, hey, what’s going on here? Why is gasoline so expensive? It is expensive because we have less production out of Iraq, and it is expensive because the value of the dollar is going down. And it is expensive because they are anticipating that this crisis is not going away, and what we do are antagonizing the world. Iraq Whom to Blame 19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:34 And literally, this Persian Gulf War, and this Iraqi war, it has been going on since 1990. We never stopped bombing Iraq, never stopped bugging them, and antagonizing them and inciting them. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:53 Our own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted, instead, in radicalizing a population whose instincts are to like Americans and our economic system. Our meddling these past 50 years has only served to alienate and unify the entire country against us. Though our officials only see Iran as an enemy, as does Israel, our policies in the Middle East these past 5 years have done wonders to strengthen Iran’s political and military position in the region. We have totally ignored serious overtures by the Iranians to negotiate with us before hostilities broke out in Iraq in 2003. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:54 Both immediately after 9/11 and especially at the time of our invasion in Iraq in 2003, Iran particularly, partially out of fear and realism, honestly sought reconciliation and offered to help the U.S. in its battle against al Qaeda. They were rebuked outright. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:56 We accommodated Iran by severely weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan on Iran’s eastern borders. On Iran’s western borders, we helped Iranians by eliminating their arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. Our invasion in Iraq and the resulting chaos have inadvertently delivered up a large portion of Iraq to the Iranians, as the majority Shiites in Iraq ally themselves with the Iranians. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:63 Our failed efforts in Iraq continue to drain our resources, costing us dearly both in lives lost and dollars spent, and there is no end in sight. No consideration is given for rejecting our obsession with a worldwide military presence which rarely, if ever, directly enhances our security. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:66 We were told we needed to go into Iraq because our old ally, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction. Yet no weapons of mass destruction were found. We were told we needed to occupy Iraq to remove al Qaeda, yet al Qaeda was nowhere to be found. And now it is admitted it had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:67 Yet, today, Iraq is infested with al Qaeda, achieving exactly the opposite of what we sought to do. We were told that we needed to secure our oil to protect our economy and to pay for our invasion and occupation. Instead, the opposite has resulted. Oil production is down. Oil prices are up, and no oil profits have been used to pay the bills. We were told that a regime change in Iraq would help us in our long-time fight with Iran, yet everything we have done in Iraq has served the interests of Iran. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:68 We are being told in a threatening and intimidating fashion that if America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous. I am convinced, though, that the law of opposites could well apply here. Going into Iraq we know produced exactly the opposite results of what was predicted. Leaving also likely will have results opposite of those we are being frightened with. Certainly leaving Vietnam at the height of the Cold War did not result in the disaster predicted by the advocates of the domino theory: an inevitable Communist takeover of the entire Far East. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:69 We are constantly being told that we cannot abandon Iraq, and we are obligated to stay forever if necessary. This admonition is similar to a rallying cry from a determined religious missionary bent on proselytizing to the world with a particular religious message. Conceding that leaving may not be a panacea for Iraqi tranquility, this assumption ignores two things: One, our preemptive war ignited the Iraqi civil war; and, two, abandoning the Iraqi people is not the question. The real question is whether or not we should abandon the American people by forcing them to pay for an undeclared war with huge economic and human costs while placing our national security in greater jeopardy by ignoring our borders and serious problems here at home. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:70 In our attempt to make Iraq a better place, we did great harm to the Iraqi Christians. Before our invasion in 2003, there were approximately 1.2 million Christians living in Iraq. Since then, over half have been forced to leave due to persecution and violence. Many escaped to Syria. With the neocons wanting to attack Syria, how long will they be safe there? The answer to the question, aren’t we better off without Saddam Hussein, is not an automatic “yes” for Iraqi Christians. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:72 We were told that attacking and eliminating Hezbollah was required to diminish the Iranian threat against Israel. The results again were the opposite. This failed effort has only emboldened Iran. The lack of success of conventional warfare, the U.S. in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon, should awaken our policymakers to our failure in war and diplomacy. Yet all we propose are bigger bombs and more military force for occupation rather than working to understand an entirely new generation of modern warfare. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:74 In attempting to build an artificial and unwelcome Iraqi military, the harder we try, the more money we spend and the more lives we lose, the stronger the real armies of Iraq become: The Sunni insurgency, the Badr Brigade, the Sadr Mahdi Army and the Kurdish Militia. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:75 The Kurds have already taken a bold step in this direction by hoisting a Kurdish flag and removing the Iraqi flag, a virtual declaration of independence. Natural local forces are winning out over outside political forces. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:76 We are looking in all of the wrong places for an Iraqi army to bring stability to that country. The people have spoken, and these troops that represent large segments of the population need no training. It is not a lack of training, weapons or money that hinders our efforts to create a new superior Iraqi military. It is the lack of inspiration and support for such an endeavor that is missing. Developing borders and separating the various factions, which our policy explicitly prohibits, is the basic flaw in our plan for a forced, unified Western-style democracy for Iraq. Allowing self-determination for different regions is the only way to erase the artificial nature of Iraq, an Iraq designed by Western outsiders nearly 80 years ago. It is our obsession with control of the oil in the region and imposing our will on the Middle East and accommodating the demands of Israel that is the problem. And the American people are finally getting sick and tired of all of their sacrifices. It is time to stop the bleeding. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:77 Instead we continue to hear the constant agitation for us to confront the Iranians with military action. Reasons to attack Iran make no more sense than our foolish preemptive war against Iraq. Fictitious charges and imaginary dangers are used to frighten the American people into accepting an attack on Iran. First it may only be sanctions, but later it will be bombs and possible ground troops if the neocons have their way. Many of the chicken-hawk neoconservative advisors to the administration are highly critical of our current policy because it is not aggressive enough. They want more troops in Iraq. They want to attack Syria and Iran and escalate the conflict in Lebanon. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:79 Logic would tell us there is no way we will contemplate taking on Iran at this time, but logic did not prevail with our Iraq policy and look at the mess we have there. Besides, both sides, the neoconservative extremists and the radical Islamists, are driven by religious fervor. Both are convinced that God is on their side, a strange assumption since theologically it is the same God. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:87 We must not forget that the 9/11 terrorists came principally from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, Lebanon or Syria. Iran has never in modern times invaded her neighbors, yet we worry obsessively that she may develop a nuclear weapon some day. Never mind that a radicalized Pakistan has nuclear weapons and our so-called friend Musharraf won’t lift a finger against bin Laden who most likely is hiding in Pakistan. Our only defense against this emerging nuclear threat has been to use and threaten to use weapons that do not meet the needs of this new and different enemy. Iraq Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work 7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:88 Since resistance against the Iraq war is building here at home, hopefully it will not be too long before we abandon our grandiose scheme to rule the entire Middle East through intimidation and military confrontation. Iraq Congressional Medal Of Honor For The Dalai Lama 13 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 78:6 “When September 11 happened, the next day I wrote a letter to President Bush as a friend — because I know him personally. I wrote this letter and expressed, besides my condolences and sadness, a countermeasure to this tragedy: a nonviolent response because that would have been more effective. So this is my stance. And then just before the Iraq crisis started, millions of people from countries like Australia and America expressed their opposition to violence. I really admired and appreciated this.” Iraq Milton Friedman 6 December 2006    2006 Ron Paul 100:29 Milton Friedman and I had our differences about foreign policy. I tried, in vain, to persuade him to be against the first Gulf war. Even there, though, he publicly supported, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, my economic argument against the war. He stated, “Henderson’s analysis is correct. There is no justification for intervention on grounds of oil” (Jonathan Marshall, “Economists Say Iraq’s Threat to U.S. Oil Supply Is Exaggerated,” San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 29, 1990.) Friedman did oppose the second Gulf war, as evidenced in an interview in the Wall Street Journal, in which he called it, correctly, “aggression.” (Tunku Varadarajan, “The Romance of Economics,” Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2006; page A10). Iraq The War In Iraq 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 7:2 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is dead. So are 3,000 Americans. The regime in Iraq has been changed; yet victory will not be declared. Not only does the war go on; it is about to escalate. Obviously, the turmoil in Iraq is worse than ever and most Americans no longer are willing to tolerate the costs, both human and economic, associated with this war. Iraq The War In Iraq 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 7:3 We have been in Iraq for 45 months. Many more Americans have been killed in Iraq than were killed in the first 45 months in Vietnam. I was in the U.S. Air Force in 1965, and I remember well when President Johnson announced a troop surge in Vietnam to hasten victory. That war went on for another decade. And by the time we finally finished that war and got out, 60,000 Americans had died. We obviously should have gotten out 10 years sooner. Troop surge then meant serious escalation. Iraq The War In Iraq 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 7:5 Who possibly benefits from escalating chaos in Iraq? Neoconservatives unabashedly have written about how chaos presents opportunities for promoting their goals. Certainly Osama bin Laden has benefited from the turmoil in Iraq, as have Iranian Shiites who are now in a better position to take control of southern Iraq. Iraq The War In Iraq 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 7:7 Three thousand American military personnel are dead. More than 22,000 are wounded, and tens of thousands will be psychologically traumatized by their tours of duty in Iraq. Little concern is given to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in this war. We have spent $400 billion so far with no end in sight. This money we do not have. It is all borrowed from countries like China that increasingly succeed in the global economy while we drain wealth from our citizens through heavy taxation and insidious inflation. Our manufacturing base is now nearly extinct. Where the additional U.S. troops in Iraq will come from is anybody’s guess, but surely they won’t be redeployed from Japan, Korea, or Europe. Iraq The War In Iraq 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 7:9 But why should we believe this? Look what happened when so many believed the reasons given for our preemptive invasion of Iraq. Selective Service officials admit running a check of their list of available young men. If the draft is reinstated, we probably will include young women as well to serve the God of equality. Conscription is slavery, plain and simple, and it was made illegal under the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. One may well be killed as a military draftee, which makes conscription a very dangerous kind of enslavement. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, a military victory in Iraq is unattainable, just as it was in the Vietnam War. At the close of the Vietnam War in 1975, a telling conversation took place between a North Vietnamese colonel named Tu and an American colonel named Harry Summers. Colonel Summers said to Tu, You know, you never beat us on the battlefield. And Tu replied, That may be so, but it is also irrelevant. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:2 It is likewise irrelevant to seek military victory in Iraq. As conditions deteriorate in Iraq, the American people are told more blood must be spilled to achieve just such a military victory. 21,000 additional troops and another $100 billion are needed for a surge, yet the people remain rightfully skeptical. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:3 Though we have been in Iraq for nearly 4 years, the meager goal today simply is to secure Baghdad. This hardly shows that the mission is even partly accomplished. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:4 Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi- billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs. We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq, all at the expense of the poor and the middle class here at home. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:5 Plans are being made to become more ruthless in achieving stability in Iraq. It appears Muqtada al Sadr will be on the receiving end of our military efforts, despite his overwhelming support among large segments of the Iraqi people. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:6 It is interesting to note that one excuse given for our failure is leveled at the Iraqis themselves: they have not done enough, we are told, and are difficult to train. Yet no one complains that the Mahdi or the Kurdish militias, the Badr Brigade, the real Iraqi Government, not our appointed government, are not well trained. Our problems obviously have nothing to do with training Iraqis to fight, but instead with loyalties and motivations. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:7 We claim to be spreading democracy in Iraq. But al Sadr has far more democratic support with the majority Shiites than our troops enjoy. The problem is not a lack of democratic consensus; it is the antipathy among most Iraqis. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:8 In real estate, the three important considerations are: location, location, location. In Iraq, the three conditions are: occupation, occupation, occupation. Nothing can improve in Iraq until we understand that our occupation is the primary source of the chaos and killing. We are a foreign occupying force strongly resented by the majority of Iraqi citizens. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:10 The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric towards Iran are unsettling. Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace, yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress. Iraq Escalation Is Hardly The Answer 11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 12:12 We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel. Iraq Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:2 JANUARY 16, 2007. MR. BUSH, MEET WALTER JONES (By Patrick J. Buchanan) America is four years into a bloody debacle in Iraq not merely because Bush and Cheney marched us in, or simply because neocon propagandists lied about Saddam’s nuclear program and WMD, and Iraqi ties to al- Qaeda, anthrax attacks, and 9/11. Iraq Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:4 And because they did, 3,000 Americans are dead, 25,000 are wounded, perhaps 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives, 1.6 million have fled, $400 billion has been lost, and America stands on the precipice of the worst strategic defeat in her history. Iraq Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:8 In his Jan. 11 address, Bush said that to defend the “territorial integrity” of Iraq, the United States must address “Iran and Syria.” Iraq Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:9 “These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” Iraq Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:10 The city sat bolt upright. If Bush was talking about Iranian agents inside Iraq, he has no need of a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, nor for those Patriot missiles he is sending to our allies. Iraq Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:19 Asked if Congress could stop him from surging 21,500 troops into Iraq, Bush on 60 Minutes brushed aside Congress as irrelevant. Iraq Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 17 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 18:26 If Biden, Kerry, Clinton, and Obama refuse to sign on to the Jones resolution, they will be silently conceding that Bush indeed does have the power to start a war on Iran. And America should pay no further attention to the Democrats’ wailing about being misled on the Iraq war. Iraq Everyone Supports The Troops 18 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 20:2 Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It is disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion and who, now, want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops. This is strange, indeed. Iraq Everyone Supports The Troops 18 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 20:3 Instead of questioning who has the best interest of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were never threatened? Iraq Everyone Supports The Troops 18 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 20:4 Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon. Iraq Everyone Supports The Troops 18 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 20:5 Many now agree that we must change our policy and extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq. They cite a mandate from the American people for a new direction. This opinion is now more popular and, thus, now more wildly held by politicians in Washington. But there is always a qualifier. We can’t simply stop funding the war because we must support the troops. I find this conclusion bizarre. It means one either believes the support-the-troops propaganda put out by the original promoters of the war, or that one actually is for the war after all, despite the public protestations. Iraq Everyone Supports The Troops 18 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 20:6 In reality, support for the status quo and the President’s troop surge in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval buildup in the region and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia demonstrate the administration’s intention to escalate our current war into something larger. Iraq Everyone Supports The Troops 18 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 20:7 There is just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serves those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran. Iraq Everyone Supports The Troops 18 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 20:9 We shouldn’t forget that the administration took $600 million from the war in Afghanistan and used it in Iraq before any direct appropriations were made for the invasion of Iraq. Funds are always available to put troops in harm’s way. They, likewise, are always available for leaving a war zone. Iraq Don’t Do It, Mr. President 6 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 21:2 We don’t need to do this. The threat is overblown. The plan is a hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist. Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy. Don’t we ever learn? Have we already forgotten Iraq? Iraq Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:3 That we have seized Iranians in Iraq, who claim they are diplomats, and now we have announced that any Iranians found in Iraq may be shot? Iraq Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:4 Has anybody noticed that large numbers of Iranians go back and forth into Iraq for many reasons, including family, religious and medical reasons, and probably for their own security as well? Iraq Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:5 Iraq Prime Minister Maliki has expressed opposition to the surge of U.S. troops? Iraq Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:6 That the violence in Iraq has sharply escalated since Saddam Hussein was hanged? Iraq Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:8 That Iraqi officials, from the government we installed, have held conciliatory talks with Iranian officials, something we refuse to do? Iraq Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:14 The latest accusations against Iran sound like a replay of the same charges against Iraq 5 years ago? Iraq Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:19 There is no definition for victory in Iraq, and our goals are constantly changing, while the supporters of the war refuse to recognize that a war without purpose, by definition, cannot be won? Iraq Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:20 That it is now argued that after 4 years of killing, we cannot leave Iraq because a worse chaos would ensue? Iraq Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed? 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 23:30 The careless support for this international war on terrorism has permitted the U.S. to intervene militarily and to bring about regime change in three countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Now we are provoking Iran so we can have an excuse to do the same thing there. But who knows, maybe we will have to deal with a regime change in Pakistan first, a regime change that will not be to our liking. Iraq Statement On The Iraq War Resolution 14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 26:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the resolution and in opposition to the escalation in Iraq. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his very determined and principled effort to end this ill-advised and dangerous war, and I am very pleased that he brought together a group of Members today who are representing the traditional conservative position on war and peace and I deeply appreciate that. Iraq Statement On The Iraq War Resolution 14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 26:2 Mr. Speaker, this grand debate is welcomed, but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran, which is supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle. This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it appears to oppose the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. Iraq Statement On The Iraq War Resolution 14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 26:5 Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with the invasion in Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly, getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are recently estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq. Iraq Statement On The Iraq War Resolution 14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 26:8 It is important to recall that the left in 2003 offered little opposition to the preemptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by defunding it, or work to prevent an attack on Iran. Iraq Statement On The Iraq War Resolution 14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 26:9 The catch-all phrase the “war on terrorism” in all honesty has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. Terrorism is a tactic. You can’t have a war against a tactic. It is deliberately vague and nondefinable in order to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere and under any circumstances. Don’t forget, the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us, including that on 9/11. Iraq Statement On The Iraq War Resolution 14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 26:11 For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing U.N. resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now, Iraq will be left in a mess; implying the implausible, that if we stay, it won’t be a mess. Iraq Statement On The Iraq War Resolution 14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 26:12 Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed, and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We have had enough of both. Iraq The Scandal At Walter Reed 7 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 34:2 It has always been politically popular for politicians to promise they will keep us out of foreign wars. Likewise, it has been popular to advocate ending prolonged and painful conflicts, like the war in Korea and Vietnam, and now Iraq. Iraq The Scandal At Walter Reed 7 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 34:8 Our policies naturally lead to resentment, which in turn leads to prolonged wars and increased casualties. We waste billions of dollars in Iraq while bases like Walter Reed fall into disrepair. This undermines our ability to care for the thousands of wounded we should have anticipated despite the rosy predictions that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. Iraq The Scandal At Walter Reed 7 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 34:14 On the contrary, Congress plans to spend another $100 billion or more in an upcoming Iraq funding bill, more than even the administration has requested. The 2007 military budget, $700 billion, apparently is not enough. All of this is done under the slogan of supporting the troops, even though our policy guarantees more Americans will die and Walter Reed will continue to receive tens of thousands of casualties. Iraq The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation 20 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 36:2 If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after 4 years of war, voting to defund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war without a constitutional declaration, voting “no” makes equally good sense. Iraq The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation 20 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 36:5 Congress failed to meet its responsibilities 4 years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent preemptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war. Iraq The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation 20 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 36:6 We won’t solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won’t help our troops. Iraq The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation 20 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 36:8 If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how Reservists and Guardsman and their families, many on their second or third tours in Iraq, feel about it. Iraq The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation 20 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 36:10 The claim that it is unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent. We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, preemptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq. Iraq The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation 20 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 36:11 It is amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq. Iraq The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation 20 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 36:12 Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequences of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It is time we woke them up. We are still by far the greatest military power on Earth; but since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves. Iraq The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation 20 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 36:16 As we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed Hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it is supposed to protect, for which it has claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places. Iraq Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive 29 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 38:5 For those who thought a Democratic Congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans. Iraq We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out) 17 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 40:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, all the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled. Iraq We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out) 17 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 40:2 Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003. Iraq We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out) 17 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 40:7 Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction. But our leaders offer only hand-wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq. Iraq We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out) 17 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 40:9 Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East. The argument for staying to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region logically falls on deaf ears. Iraq We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out) 17 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 40:13 It is time to march out of Iraq and come home. Iraq In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?) 22 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 55:28 The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time. Iraq In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?) 22 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 55:36 The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long plan for invasion of Iraq. Iraq In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?) 22 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 55:37 The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America. Iraq Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:2 The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam-dunk operation, that we would be welcomed as liberators and oil revenues would pay the bills with minimum loss of American lives. All this hyperbole, while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead. Iraq Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:3 The chaos that this pre-emptive undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the al Qaeda to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served. The unintended consequences have been numerous. A well-intentioned but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination without victory or resolution in sight. Iraq Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:5 This wait-and-see attitude and a promised reassessment of events in Iraq late this summer strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans to influence the coming decision in 3 months. In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait-and-see attitude, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving; a perfect time for Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each and on our troops and just possibly start talking with each other. Iraq Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:6 Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq, yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse if they leave. They refuse to admit the conditions of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruiting device for al Qaeda. It is time for a change in American foreign policy. Iraq Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:11 The real problem with our plans to train a faction of Iraqis to carry out our plans for the Middle East is that the majority of Iraqis object and the army trainees are not as motivated as are the members of the various militias. The Kurds have a militia capable of maintaining order in their region. Sadr has a huge militia that is anxious to restore order and have us gone. The Badr brigade is trained to defend its interests. And the Sunnis are armed and determined. Our presence only serves to stir the pot by our troops being a target of nearly all the groups who are positioning themselves for our anticipated departure. Iraq Unanticipated Good results (When We leave) 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 57:13 Al Qaeda and Iran were not influential in Iraq before the invasion and would not be welcomed after we leave. There is cooperation now, motivated by the shared desire of the Sunnis and the Shiites to oppose our occupation. There’s definitely a potential that the Iraqis may do much better in dealing with their own problems than anyone can imagine once we leave. Already there are developing coalitions of Sunni and Shiites in the Iraqi parliament that seek this resolve. Iraq Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 59:7 Credibility would depend on us discontinuing building permanent bases in Iraq. We don’t need a single base in the entire Middle East to protect U.S. security. Having bases there only jeopardizes our security. Iraq Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 59:8 The embassy we’re building in Iraq, the largest in the world, a virtual fortress, nearly the size of the Vatican, should be donated to some Iraqi organization that might make good use of it. A small office with a few personnel would send a signal of our intent not to rule the Middle East for decades to come. Iraq Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 59:13 It’s estimated that 90 percent of our Army and National Guard is poorly equipped. A new policy would return our National Guard to the States to be available when an emergency comes, no longer leaving the States high and dry because these troops are in Iraq. Iraq Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 59:14 Some of these dollars saved and personnel brought home could be redirected toward border protection here in this country. The border guards sent off to Iraq to train Iraqis in border control could return to their proper function here in the United States. Iraq Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 59:17 Those who misled us into the war in Iraq continually claim that, yes, that’s true. Mistakes were made. But now the reason we must stay is to clean up the mess we created, while never admitting that the mess gets worse and the costs go up the longer we stay. Iraq Introducing A Bill To establish A Sunset For The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 60:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to establish a sunset for the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq (P.L. 107–243). There are several active pieces of legislation that would rescind the authorization to use force against Iraq, but the approach of this legislation is quite different. This legislation would sunset the original authorization 6 months after it is enacted, which would give Congress plenty of time to consider anew the authority for Iraq. Iraq Introducing A Bill To establish A Sunset For The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 60:2 The rationale for this sunset is that according to the 2002 authorization for Iraq, the President was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: “( 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Iraq Introducing A Bill To establish A Sunset For The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 60:3 It should be obvious to both supporters and critics of our military action in Iraq that our military has achieved both legal objectives. Our military quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. And a government has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq that has met with U.S. approval, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization. Iraq Introducing A Bill To establish A Sunset For The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 60:4 With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, Congress has a constitutional obligation to revisit this issue and provide needed oversight and policy guidance. We ignore this obligation at risk to the United States and, very importantly, to our soldiers in harm’s way in Iraq. Iraq Introducing A Bill To establish A Sunset For The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) 7 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 60:5 Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the President’s handling of the war. It does not cut off funds for the troops. Nor does this bill set a timetable for our withdrawal. I strongly believe that this legislation will enjoy broad support among both those in favor of our action in Iraq and those who favor ending the war, and I am encouraged by the bipartisan support I have received when seeking original cosponsors. Congress is obligated to consider anew the authority for Iraq sooner rather than later and I hope more of my colleagues will join me as cosponsors of this legislation. Iraq A Man Of Principle 15 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 67:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to enter into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a letter to the editor of the Carteret County News-Times by General John Batiste titled, “A Man of Principle.” General Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq and in this letter he rightfully praises one of the most courageous Members of Congress, my friend Rep. WALTER JONES of North Carolina. Rep. JONES, correctly observes General Batiste, is a man of principle and well understands the dilemma we face in Iraq. It is very encouraging for me to read the words of the highly experienced General Batiste affirming the correctness of Congressman JONES’ position on Iraq, because I share Rep. JONES views about this very difficult situation we find ourselves. I also salute Rep. JONES for his courage and his determination to seek the truth. Iraq A Man Of Principle 15 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 67:2 [From the Carteret County News-Times, May 25, 2007] A MAN OF PRINCIPLE ROCHESTER, N.Y., May 22, 2007 TO THE EDITOR: Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina’s 3rd District deserves our unqualified support. He is a man of principle and well understands the dilemma we face in Iraq to include the fatally flawed strategy that took us to war in March 2003; the failure to modify the same strategy over time; the administration’s continued reliance on the military without the necessary diplomatic, political, and economic components fundamental to a successful strategy; the administration’s failure to mobilize the nation to deal with global Islamic extremism; and the dire straights our great soldiers and Marines find themselves in today. Iraq A Man Of Principle 15 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 67:5 I base this judgment on personal experience, a 31-year career in the Army, two combat tours in Iraq, many years of service in Balkans peace enforcement in both Bosnia and Kosovo and service in the Pentagon before, during and after Sept. 11th, 2001. I am a lifelong Republican. I respect Walter Jones for his moral courage and resolve to get things right. Iraq A Man Of Principle 15 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 67:6 I met Congressman Jones in his office in the Rayburn Office Building some eight months ago. I was impressed then with his grasp of the situation in Iraq and his unqualified love of country and support for our military. Indeed, for the last five years, he is one of only several congressional Republicans who have embraced their constitutional responsibilities to overwatch and hold accountable our executive branch of government. He asks the tough questions and never backs down. The vast majority of our party has long since abrogated this incredibly important aspect of their duty. He well represents his constituents and the best interests of both our country and our military. As President Gerald Ford once said, “Truth is the glue that holds our government together.” Since our first meeting eight months ago, my respect of Walter Jones has multiplied tenfold. Iraq Calling On The United Nations Security Council To Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because Of His Calls For Destruction Of Israel 18 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 70:2 Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing U.N. resolutions as justification, this resolution is like deja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for U.N. resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran. Iraq Calling On The United Nations Security Council To Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because Of His Calls For Destruction Of Israel 18 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 70:4 I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. GEN William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution. Iraq Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 12 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 75:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2956 which, while a well-intended attempt to reduce our nation’s seemingly unlimited military commitment in Iraq, is in so many respects deeply flawed. Iraq Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 12 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 75:2 I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002 and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial “Iraq regime change” legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I oppose this legislation is that it masquerades as a troop withdrawal measure but in reality may well end up increasing U.S. commitments in the Middle East Iraq Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 12 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 75:4 To those who believe this act would somehow end the war, I simply point to the title for Section 3 of the bill, which states, “Requirement to reduce the number of armed forces in Iraq and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq.” However the number of troops are limited, this legislation nevertheless will permit an ongoing American military presence in Iraq with our soldiers continuing to be engaged in hostilities. Iraq Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 12 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 75:5 I also wish to draw attention to Section 4(b)(1), which mandates the President to submit a “Strategy for Iraq” by the beginning of next year. This “strategy” is to include: Iraq Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 12 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 75:6 A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section 3 of this Act. Iraq Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 12 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 75:7 In other words, far from extricating ourselves from the debacle in Iraq, this bill would set in motion a policy that could lead to a wider regional commitment, both financially and militarily. Such a policy would be disastrous for both our overextended national security forces and beleaguered taxpayers. This could, in fact, amount to an authorization for a region-wide “surge.” Iraq Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 12 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 75:8 Congress’ job is to change the policy on Iraq, not to tell the military leaders how many troops they should have. I have attempted to do this with H.R. 2605, a bill to sunset after a six month period the authorization for military activity in Iraq. During this period a new plan for Iraq could be discussed and agreed. Plan first, authorization next, execution afterward. That is what we should be doing in Iraq. Iraq Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 12 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 75:9 In summary, Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings us no closer to ending the war in Iraq. It brings us no closer to bringing our troops home. It says nothing about withdrawal, only about redeployment. It says nothing about reducing U.S. presence in the Middle East, and may actually lead to an expanded U.S. presence in the region. We have no guarantee the new strategy demanded by this legislation would not actually expand our military activities to Iran and Syria and beyond. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and put forth an effective strategy to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home. Iraq Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act 30 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 77:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 180 is premised on the assumption that. divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others. Iraq Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran 30 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 78:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose any move to initiate further sanctions on Iran. Sanctions are acts of war, and expanding sanctions on Iran serves no purpose other than preparing the American people for an eventual attack on Iran. This is the same pattern we saw in the run up to the war on Iraq: Congress passes legislation calling for regime change, sanctions are imposed, and eventually we are told that only an attack will solve the problem. We should expect the same tragic result if we continue down this path. I urge my colleagues to reconsider. Iraq Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran 30 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 78:2 I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders or change their policies by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked — when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So sanctions mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies. Iraq Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran 30 July 2007    2007 Ron Paul 78:4 We must keep in mind that Iran has still not been found in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, much of the information regarding Iran’s nuclear program is coming to us via thoroughly discredited sources like the MeK, a fanatical cult that is on our State Department’s terror list. Additionally, the same discredited neo-conservatives who pushed us into the Iraq war are making similarly exaggerated claims against Iran. How often do these “experts” have to be proven wrong before we start to question their credibility? Iraq Statement on HR 3159, the Ensuring Military Readiness through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act 2 August 2007    2007 Ron Paul 83:3 Although I am voting for this bill, I am increasingly concerned about Congress’s approach to the issue of our continued involvement in Iraq. Rather than a substantive move to end the US military presence in Iraq, this bill and others that have passed recently seem to be merely symbolic moves to further politicize the war in Iraq. Clearly the American public is overwhelmingly in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq, but Congress is not listening. At best, the House seems willing to consider only such half-measures as so-called re-deployment. We need a real solution that puts the safety of our troops above politics. We need to simply bring them home. As I said recently on the Floor of the House, we just marched in so we can just march out. Iraq Opposing Legislation To Provoke Iran 25 September 2007    2007 Ron Paul 94:2 The House has obviously learned nothing at all from the Iraq debacle. In 2002, Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional obligation to declare war and instead transfer that authority to the President. Many of my colleagues have expressed regrets over their decision to transfer this authority to the President, yet this legislation is Iraq all over again. Some have plausibly claimed that the move in this legislation to designate the Iranian military as a foreign terrorist organization is an attempt to signal to the President that he already has authority under previous resolutions to initiate force against Iran. We should recall that language specifically requiring the President to return to Congress before initiating any strike on Iran was removed from legislation by House leadership this year. Iraq Opposing Legislation To Provoke Iran 25 September 2007    2007 Ron Paul 94:5 The march to war with Iraq was preceded with numerous bills similar to H.R. 1400. No one should be fooled: supporters of this legislation are aiming the same outcome for Iran. I strongly urge a “no” vote on this bill. Iraq Question Of The Privileges Of The House 6 November 2007    2007 Ron Paul 102:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio’s desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq. Iraq Statement on Gaza Bill March 5, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 10:3 Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country. Iraq Statement on Coinage March 11, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 12:2 Oversight by members of Congress, who have an incentive to listen to their constituents, ensures openness and transparency. This bill would eliminate that process and delegate it to unelected bureaucrats. The Secretary of the Treasury would be given sole discretion to alter the metal content of coins, or even to create non-metal coins. Given the history of Congressional delegation and subsequent lax oversight on issues as important as the conflict in Iraq, it would be naïve to believe that Congress would exercise any more oversight over an issue as unimportant to most members as the composition of coins. Iraq Comments at Hearing Questions for the Witnesses, General David H. Petraeus, USA and The Honorable Ryan C. Crocker April 9, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 21:2 Why should the American people continue to support a war that was justified by false information, since Saddam Hussein never aggressed against the United States, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? Iraq Comments at Hearing Questions for the Witnesses, General David H. Petraeus, USA and The Honorable Ryan C. Crocker April 9, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 21:3 It is said that we must continue the war because we have already sacrificed so much. But what is moral about demanding even more needless sacrifice of human lives merely to save face for the mistakes of invading and occupying Iraq? Iraq Comments at Hearing Questions for the Witnesses, General David H. Petraeus, USA and The Honorable Ryan C. Crocker April 9, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 21:4 Doesn’t it seem awfully strange that the Iraqi government we support is an ally of the Iranians who are our declared enemies? Are we not now supporting the Iranians by propping up their allies in Iraq? If (Iraqi Prime Minister) Maliki is our ally and he has “diplomatic relations” with (Iranian President) Ahmadinejad why can’t we? Why must we continue to provoke Iran, just looking for an excuse to bomb that country? Does our policy in Iraq not guarantee chaos for years to come? Iraq Comments at Hearing Questions for the Witnesses, General David H. Petraeus, USA and The Honorable Ryan C. Crocker April 9, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 21:5 It is estimated that up to 2,000 Iraqi soldiers refused to fight against al-Sadr’s militia. Why should we not expect many of the 80,000 Sunnis we have recently armed to someday turn their weapons against us, since they as well as the Mahdi Army detest any and all foreign occupation? Iraq Comments at Hearing Questions for the Witnesses, General David H. Petraeus, USA and The Honorable Ryan C. Crocker April 9, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 21:8 Does Iran not have a greater justification to be involved in neighboring Iraq than we do, since it is 6,000 from our shores? If China and Russia were occupying Mexico how would we react? Iraq Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:1 Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing on the current state of affairs in Iraq with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Reviewing the presentations by our panel, I have noted with some concern that they seem more focused on justifying a future attack on Iran than reporting on progress in Iraq. Much of the assertions about Iran in Iraq seem illogical, others seem intended to inflame the situation with little justification. Iraq Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:2 Particularly, I am concerned about claims that a new enemy in Iraq has emerged with ties to Iran. First we were told that the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. Then we were told the enemy was the “dead-enders” from Saddam’s former government. Then the prime enemy became “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” a prime focus of the presentation by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus last September. Now we are told that the new enemies are mysterious “Special Groups” that are said to have spun off from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Iraq Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:3 If this phenomenon of constantly emerging enemies bent on destabilizing Iraq is accurate and our presence in Iraq keeps generating new enemies, perhaps the problem is the occupation itself. If this is the case, doesn’t it make sense that our departure from Iraq may actually have a stabilizing effect? Iraq Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:4 I suspect these allegations that Iranian-supported “Special Groups” are now the prime enemy are in reality designed to provide an excuse for a planned US attack on Iran or are meant as justification for a permanent US military presence in Iraq. Iraq Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:5 It makes little sense to assert that Iran is funding militias to undermine the Iraqi government. The current Iraqi government may have been approved by the United States, but essentially it was made in Iran. The leading political parties of Iraq, the DAWA and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council have close ties to Iran. Leaders of these parties were in exile in Iran until the US invasion of Iraq. Iranian president Ahmadinejad is warmly welcomed in Baghdad by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. Why would Iran set up militias in the south to destabilize a government with such strong Iranian ties? I find the allegation that Iran just cannot tolerate an elected government next door to be unsatisfying, particularly considering that Iran itself regularly holds elections where a wide variety of political parties compete for power. Iraq Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:6 It is alleged that the rockets fired into the Green Zone during the recent clashes in Baghdad and Basra were made in 2007 in Iran. Is it not true, however, that if the Iranian government were to actually arm the Iraqi militias, these groups would have more modern weapons to counter U.S. helicopter gunships and heavy tanks? Is there any hard proof that the Iranian government is arming groups in Iraq? There are reports that thousands of US weapons have gone missing in Iraq. If some of these turn up in the hands of insurgents, would it make sense to suggest that the US government is intentionally arming them? Iraq Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:7 In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Iran is trying to prevent the further destabilization of Iraq, which makes sense considering that Iran is next door and would keenly feel the effects of an Iraq fallen into civil war. The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Iranian government has condemned attacks on the “Green Zone” in Iraq. According to other press reports, the government of Iran brokered a ceasefire after recent Iraqi government moves against elements of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra. Iraq Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony April 9 2008    2008 Ron Paul 22:8 Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by again stating my concern that the real purpose of today’s testimony is to further set the stage for an attack on Iran. Congress should make it very clear that there is no authority under current law for an attack on Iran. It is in our best interest to talk with Iran and to work with Iran to help stabilize the situation in Iraq. It is also in our immediate interest to remove US forces from Iraq as quickly as it is safe to do so. Iraq Statement on H Res 1194, “Reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.” May 20, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 30:2 This language is eerily similar to a key clause in the 2002 Iraq war authorization, H.J. Res. 114, which read: (a) AUTHORIZATION—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; Iraq Statement on H Res 1194, “Reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.” May 20, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 30:6 Afghanistan continues to sink toward chaos with no end in sight. The war in Iraq, launched on lies and deceptions, has cost nearly a trillion dollars and more than 4,000 lives with no end in sight. Saber rattling toward Iran and Syria increases daily, including in this very legislation. Yet we are committing ourselves to intervene in a domestic political dispute that has nothing to do with the United States. Iraq TRIBUTE TO MONICA BROWN 12 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 34:4 I am pleased to take this opportunity to salute U.S. Army Specialist Monica Brown and let her know how proud I, and all of Lake Jackson, are of her heroism. I urge all my colleagues, and all Americans, to join me in saluting Monica Brown and all the brave men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY 26 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 40:5 We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in in the correct manner. We didn’t declare war. We’re there. It’s an endless struggle. We’re in Iraq. We’re endlessly struggling there, and I cannot believe that we may well be on the verge of initiating bombing of Iran. Iraq DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY 26 June 2008    2008 Ron Paul 40:11 This is what we did for 10 years before we went into Iraq. We starved children. 50,000 individuals that were admitted probably died because of the sanctions on the Iraqis. They were incapable at the time of attacking us, and all of the propaganda that was given for our need to go into Iraq wasn’t true. Iraq Statement on H Con Res 385 Condemning the Attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires , Argentine, in July 1994 and for other purposes 15 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 45:4 Those pushing for a US attack on Iran are using this tragic event to foment fear in the United States that Iran and Hezbollah are perpetrating terrorist acts in the Western Hemisphere . This is another in an ongoing series of resolutions we see on the House floor pushing us toward war against Iran . I have no doubt that we will see another similar resolution on the floor next week, and the week after, and so on until we find ourselves making another tragic mistake as we did in 2002 with H J Res 114 giving the president the authority to attack Iraq. Iraq Statement on H. RES. 1370 Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens July 30, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 54:1 Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which is yet another meaningless but provocative condemnation of China . It is this kind of jingoism that has led to such a low opinion of the United States abroad. Certainly I do not condone human rights abuses, wherever they may occur, but as Members of the US House of Representatives we have no authority over the Chinese government. It is our Constitutional responsibility to deal with abuses in our own country or those created abroad by our own foreign policies. Yet we are not debating a bill to close Guantanamo , where abuses have been documented. We are not debating a bill to withdraw from Iraq , where scores of innocents have been killed, injured, and abused due to our unprovoked attack on that country. We are not debating a bill to reverse the odious FISA bill passed recently which will result in extreme abuses of Americans by gutting the Fourth Amendment. Iraq Statement on HR 4137 August 1, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 56:5 I am convinced that some promoters of the “Academic Bill of Rights” would be unhappy if, instead of fostering greater debate, this bill silences discussion of certain topics. Scan the websites of some of the organizations promoting the “Academic Bill of Rights” and you will also find calls for silencing critics of the Iraq war and other aspects of American foreign policy. Iraq Statement on H. R. 6599, Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Appropriations 1 August 2008    2008 Ron Paul 57:4 We have been told that we will have no permanent bases in Iraq , but then again we have no “permanent” bases in Korea either even though we have had a military presence there for more than 50 years. It is unclear how much of this $12 billion will go to building new facilities to maintain an indefinite presence in Iraq , but any such expenditure will be counterproductive to US national interests. Iraq Statement on H Res 34, Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, Reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process January 9, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 7:5 So then we, as Americans, say, Well, we have such a good system; we’re going to impose this on the world. We’re going to invade Iraq and teach people how to be democrats. We want free elections. So we encouraged the Palestinians to have a free election. They do, and they elect Hamas. Iraq WHAT IF? February 12, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 15:5 What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan – and bombing Pakistan – is directly related to the hatred directed towards us? Iraq WHAT IF? February 12, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 15:6 What if some day it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens – no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced? Iraq WHAT IF? February 12, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 15:15 What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq? Iraq WHAT IF? February 12, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 15:19 What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together? Iraq THE END IS NOT NEAR March 4, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 21:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the end of the war is not near. I might ask, are the troops coming home from Iraq as promised? Not quite. Sixteen months is too quick, so the plan now is to do it in 34 months. The administration claims all the troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Sure they will. Iraq THE END IS NOT NEAR March 4, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 21:2 We’re told that 50,000 U.S. troops will still be in Iraq in August of 2010, and we’re supposed to cheer. We’re told that they won’t be combat troops, so we’re to believe that means they won’t be exposed to any danger. If they are non-combat troops, does that mean they are bureaucrats, policemen, teachers or soldiers without weapons? This will hardly satisfy the Iraqis, who resent any foreign troops at all in their country. A U.S. puppet government protected by 50,000 American soldiers is not the road to peace. Iraq THE END IS NOT NEAR March 4, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 21:4 Will the 100,000 Sunni militants we arm and subsidize continue to obey our wishes? It sounds to me like a powder keg exists with the indecisiveness of our Iraqi policy. Iraq THE END IS NOT NEAR March 4, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 21:6 Our presence will serve as an incentive for al Qaeda to grow in numbers and motivate more suicide bombers. An indefinite presence, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, will continue to drain our financial resources, undermine our national defense, demoralize our military and exacerbate our financial crisis. All this will be welcomed by Osama Bin Laden, just as he planned it. It’s actually more than he had hoped for. Iraq THE END IS NOT NEAR March 4, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 21:7 More likely the outcome will be that greater than 50,000 Americans will be in Iraq in August of 2010, especially when the contractors are counted. Violence will accelerate. We will be an occupier at the end of 2011, and we will remain a pariah in the Middle East. Iraq HONORING JACK KEMP May 6, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 53:3 In his later years, Jack was critical of the idea that the best way to promote human liberty was through an aggressively militaristic foreign policy. In his 1996 campaign for Vice President, Jack attacked the Clinton Administration’s aggressive foreign policy, famously quipping that the United States government should not “bomb before breakfast.” In my last conversation with Jack, he shared with me his opposition to the Iraq war. Iraq AMERICA’S TREASURY IS BARE May 14, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 54:5 This process bothers me a whole lot that we come to the floor with the supplementals. We rush them through. We talk about this excessive spending. And lo and behold, when we finally vote, we get a total of 60 people who would say, Enough is enough. And besides, what are we doing? Where are we spending this money? I thought we were supposed to, with this change in administration, that we would be fighting less wars. But no. The war in Iraq continues. We expand the war in Afghanistan. We spread the war into Pakistan. And we always have on the table the potential danger of Iran. Iraq Rep. Paul Opposes Bill June 10, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 65:7 Think of what our troops and our money have done in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq. I think this provision, itself, is enough reason to vote against this authorization. Iraq Statement on War Supplemental Appropriations June 16, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 67:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse. Iraq Statement on War Supplemental Appropriations June 16, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 67:2 This conference report, being a Washington- style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version – in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas. Iraq Statement on War Supplemental Appropriations June 16, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 67:4 Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us more safe at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report. Iraq Afghanistan, Part 1 November 18, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 96:7 And then, following that, we had decades of bombing in Iraq which didn’t please the Arabs and the Muslims of the world and certainly the Iraqis, but it had nothing to do with national security. Iraq Afghanistan, Part 1 November 18, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 96:10 We know that 9/11 changed everything. We had 15 individuals from Saudi Arabia, a few from Yemen and a few from Egypt, but, aha, this is an excuse that we have got to get the bad guys. So where are the bad guys? Well, Iraq, of course. Of course, they figured, well, we can’t quite do that, let’s go into Afghanistan. Of course, not one single Afghani did anything to us. They said, oh, no, the al Qaeda visited there. Iraq THE QUAGMIRE OF AFGHANISTAN December 2, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 101:2 This is not new for us. This is more or less the rule rather than the exception, and I believe this comes about because of the way we go to war. In the last 60-some years, we have never had a declaration of war, but we have been involved in plenty. We’ve been involved in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and the Iraq War, and now Afghanistan, and it looks like it’s going to be Pakistan as well. Iraq THE QUAGMIRE OF AFGHANISTAN December 2, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 101:8 Yet what is the motivation for individuals to become radical against us, whether it’s in the Taliban or al Qaeda? There is one single factor that is the most influential in motivating somebody to commit suicide terrorism against anybody or us, and that is occupation by a foreign nation. And now, where have we occupied? We have occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. We are bombing Pakistan. But not only the literal occupation, but also, we have this threat on Pakistan. Iraq Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee December 10, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 103:5 Proponents of the president’s Afghanistan escalation cite the successful “surge” in Iraq as evidence that this second surge will have similar results. I fear they might be correct about the similar result, but I dispute the success propaganda about Iraq. In fact, the violence in Iraq only temporarily subsided with the completion of the ethnic cleansing of Shi’ites from Sunni neighborhoods and vice versa – and all neighborhoods of Christians. Those Sunni fighters who remained were easily turned against the foreign al-Qaeda presence when offered US money and weapons. We are increasingly seeing this “success” breaking down: sectarian violence is flaring up and this time the various groups are better armed with US-provided weapons. Similarly, the insurgents paid by the US to stop their attacks are increasingly restive now that the Iraqi government is no longer paying bribes on a regular basis. So I am skeptical about reports on the success of the Iraqi surge. Iraq Sanctions on Iran, Part 1 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 104:1 Mr. PAUL. The chairman states that the main purpose of this bill is to prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. That isn’t even as powerful a statement as was made that enticed us into the Iraq war. There was the claim that they already had them. But now, this is a pretense, and yet here we are taking these drastic steps. My main reason for opposing this bill is that I think it’s detrimental to our national security. There’s no other reason. It doesn’t serve our interests. So I am absolutely opposed to it. Iraq Sanctions on Iran, Part 1 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 104:5 And also, one of the purposes of enticing us over there and being involved is to give a greater incentive to recruit those individuals who become violent against us. And this has been unbelievably successful. So we’ve been involved in Iraq. We’ve been involved in Afghanistan. We’re bombing Pakistan and almost, this is like another bonus for those who want us to be attacked, is that we’re over there and just fomenting this anger and hatred toward us. Iraq Sanctions on Iran, Part 2 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 105:2 If the gentleman from California didn’t like my analogy about how we were maneuvered into war in World War II, I think it might be much more appropriate to compare it to the sanctions on Iraq. There were those in the 1990s that wanted us to go to war with Iraq. We were looking for an excuse, and we put strong sanctions, continued flying over their country and bombing. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of kids died because of those sanctions, and eventually they got their war. We ended up in the war. Iraq Sanctions on Iran, Part 3 December 15, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 106:11 As we have learned with U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with U.S. sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the U.S. targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime. Texas Straight Talk Iraq - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 4 ... Cached In recent weeks we have seen politicians and media personalities begin to beat the drums of war. While the overthrow of Iraq's Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly be a positive event for that nation and the world, those who have fervently called for American involvement and intervention have misunderstood the problems and ignored the costs. Iraq - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 5 ... Cached Most fundamentally, U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq is flawed; it totally ignores history, and reflects a lack of understanding of long-time justifiable Arab distrust of the West. The Middle East has been savaged and ruled by outsiders for a thousand years, and U.N. quick-fixes will only aggravate the understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels by the Arabs. Iraq - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 7 ... Cached There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can't afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region's huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security. Iraq - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 8 ... Cached The cost of such an involvement is very high, and dependent on the immoral use of force. It is argued that the Persian Gulf War was a "cheap" war because less than 200 American military personnel lost their lives. But I argue that even if only one life is needlessly lost, the cost is too high. The billions of dollars spent obviously is a major cost to the American taxpayer. And with an estimated 35,000 military personnel suffering from the Gulf War Syndrome, a final price has yet to be determined. And horribly, the "price" innocent Iraqi civilians pay is seemingly of no concern to our policy makers. Iraq - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 9 ... Cached During the 60-day Persian Gulf War, more bombs were dropped on Iraq than all the bombs dropped on Germany in World War II. Yet instability remains and hatred of America increases. Many years of experience should demonstrate that further hostilities toward Iraq benefits Hussein as his people rally more strongly around him with each increase in sanctions. Iraq - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 11 ... Cached According to a recent Associated Press news story, Kuwait's leaders and citizens are opposed to US interference with Iraq; remember, this is the same nation we went to war for after Iraq invaded them six years ago. If the people most vulnerable to Iraqi aggression are not anxious to see military might used against Hussein, they are sending a strong message to us about the wisdom of using force at this time. Iraq - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 12 ... Cached A popular conservative talk show host has suggested that the solution to the dilemma might be an alliance with Iran, for the purpose of destroying Iraq. This reflects the senselessness of foreign policy in the region. In the early 1980's, when Iraq was using poison gases against Iran, we were Iraq's allies. In essence, we subsidized the very weapons we now want to kill Hussein for possessing. Iraq - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 13 ... Cached Our foreign policy is without sense or reason. We subsidize China to the tune of many billions of dollars, although their record on human rights is every bit as bad as Iraq. Not only that, but China probably represents the greatest threat to world peace of all the countries in the world. Further, we are currently bailing-out Indonesia, although it too, violates the civil liberties of their own people. The U.S. criticizes Iraq for the treatment of the Kurds; yet Turkey's policy is the same and we reward them with more American dollars. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have hardly been champions of civil liberties for minority religious groups or women, and yet we sacrificed American lives for them. The determining factor in all this seems to be who's controlling the oil. Human rights issues and provoked threats from Hussein seem to be nothing more than propaganda tools for the politicians. Iraq - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace 24 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 15 ... Cached Policy toward Iraq is based on the special interests of powerful financial and oil interests. It is not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the US taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel. Iraq Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base 02 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 2 ... Cached Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base Iraq Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base 02 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 3 ... Cached It appears the Clinton Administration is now ready to bomb Iraq. Iraq Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base 02 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 4 ... Cached The stated reason, of course, is to force UN inspectors into every inch of Iraqi territory to rule out the existence of any weapons of mass destruction: an impossible and implausible task. While some will try to claim that the President's personal problems may influence this decision (which should not be completely discounted), the real problem is the flawed foreign policy which underlies all our activities abroad. Iraq Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base 02 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 5 ... Cached Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all posses weapons of mass destruction, and at least three are hostile to American policies. It makes no sense that a petty dictator without weapons is the target of hostilities while big dictators with massive armaments are the recipients of US aid. Iraq Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base 02 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 12 ... Cached And a Kuwaiti legislator was quoted as saying, "The use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it." Iraq Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base 02 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 14 ... Cached Sadly, our policy in the Middle East has served to strengthen the hand of Hussein and unify the Islamic Fundamentalists against the United States. Hussein is now anxious for the bombs to hit so he can further stir hatred and blame toward America for the pain he has inflicted on his people. Indeed, at every turn in this "crises," Hussein has gone before his people and blamed the US for their problems. And the Iraqi people believe it. Iraq US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq 16 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 2 ... Cached US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq Iraq US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq 16 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 8 ... Cached There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the US. Iraq US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq 16 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 11 ... Cached But while the politicians are talking about sending our troops to battle, the American people are becoming more concerned with the unforeseen, or, rather, undiscussed, consequences. Up to now, no one has been able to show that Iraq has either the ability or the intentions to attack the United States. Foolish actions against that nation will only make it more likely that American citizens and cities could be targeted for terrorist or military attacks. In fact, Saddam Hussein is hoping to provoke the very actions now being contemplated on Capitol Hill. By attacking the Republic of Iraq, and killing Iraqi nationals with our bombs, Hussein will have the political leverage to gain even more support, and the imperative from his people and supporters to strike back from the position of an underdog. Further, there is discussion of possible anti-West alliances being forged in the Middle East which actions against Iraq could further provoke. Iraq US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq 16 February 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 14 ... Cached According to the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. My legislation prohibits Defense Department funds from being used for offensive actions against Iraq without Congress legally declaring a war. Iraq US should stop meddling in foreign wars 16 March 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 4 ... Cached Last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week's devil is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Jong Il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Iraq US should stop meddling in foreign wars 16 March 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 9 ... Cached Planning any military involvement in Kosova is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion of whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq. Iraq Congressional action weakens national defense 06 April 1998    Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 6 ... Cached One of the truly positive aspects of HR 3579 was Section 3002, stating that "none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act." This language is virtually identical to HR 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq. Iraq Congressional action weakens national defense 06 April 1998    Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 11 ... Cached There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States. Iraq Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy 22 June 1998    Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 11 ... Cached In fact, as we have seen with embargoes on Iraq and Cuba, the dictator grows stronger when there are heavy sanctions, not weaker. But in our country, those sanctions are devastating. Mr. Warfield told a congressional panel recently that when the United States placed an embargo on US grain against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, $2.3 billion was lost in farm exports. Iraq "Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog 24 August 1998    Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 11 ... Cached Far too often, the bombing of declared (or concocted) enemies, whether it's the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Albanians, or the Afghans, produces precisely the opposite effect to what is sought. It kills innocent people, creates more hatred toward America, unifies and stimulates the growth of the extremist Islamic movement and makes them more determined than ever to strike back with their weapon of choice -- terror. Iraq Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems 23 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 5 ... Cached That trusty villain Saddam Hussein. Remember him? Trained by our government, supported with our tax dollars, encouraged by our leaders. He became the global miscreant after he -- a thug, no doubt -- invaded another country of thuggish status. But the country he invaded was run by thugs with whom we had a closer relationship than he, so Saddam's Iraq became the new target of hatred and scorn -- and misuse of American military might. Iraq Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems 23 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 6 ... Cached Our relationship with the Republic of Iraq over the last two decades is a case study in all that is wrong with our national foreign policy. We prop-up immoral dictators, making them our friends and allies at the whim of one administration in keeping with the political correctness of the day, only to completely reverse our course a few years later for no logical reasons. When an individual behaves that way, clinicians refer to it as schizophrenia. Iraq Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems 23 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 7 ... Cached We must either be engaged in a purely schizophrenic foreign policy, or we must admit to there being such a thing as "good thugs versus bad thugs." Or, we have to say our policies are driven by the commercial interests of big business (to "protect" the availability of foreign oil, in the case of Iraq). It is hard to decide which of the three could be worse. Iraq Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes 21 December 1998    Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 15 ... Cached Most recently, the Congress interrupted the important impeachment debate to pass a two-part resolution. The first half simply offered support for our troops, and was unobjectionable. The second half, though, encouraged the president, praised his unconstitutional actions, and recommended that he engage in further unconstitutional actions by trying to topple the leadership of Iraq and replace it with what would amount to a US taxpayer supported puppet regime. Of course, voting against the second part is depicted as the fans of unconstitutional war as opposing our troops. Nevertheless, I voted against the resolution because I cannot sanction abuses of our Constitution. Iraq Stopping the President's New Little War 15 February 1999    Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 8 ... Cached We spend less and less money every year on our own defense while spending more and more policing the world. It would be better to spend on national defense projects the money now being wasted in Bosnia, Iraq and other locales around the world. Moreover, our nation would be undeniably stronger by not having our soldiers killed in pointless "police" actions. Iraq Playing with matches in the powder keg 05 April 1999    Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 4 ... Cached A weakened nation left with a dwindling supply of weapons while facing an increasingly tense situation with troops held hostage and military morale at an all-time low, as war-mongering civilian leaders are eager to spill more blood. Not a description of Iraq or Serbia, but of the US as we enter the second quarter of 1999. Iraq Restricting the Executive Orders 02 August 1999    Texas Straight Talk 02 August 1999 verse 11 ... Cached I have introduced legislation, along with Rep. Jack Metcalf of Washington, that would bring our federal system into proper balance. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act (HR2655) prohibits a presidential order from having the effect of law by restricting the scope of the directives. In addition, it repeals the 1973 War Powers Act, which -- despite the constitutional prohibition -- granted broad war-making authority to the Office of the President. Further, the legislation suspends all of the "national emergencies" which have been declared since 1976, when Congress last canceled them. Still on the books are "emergencies" relating to Iraq and the Soviet bloc. These emergency declarations give presidents great authority, even if the situation no longer presents a threat to our national security. Iraq Budget Standoff Continues 15 November 1999    Texas Straight Talk 15 November 1999 verse 7 ... Cached But this year's budget process has brought us many other wonders, also. For example, the Defense Appropriations bill provides $1.7 Billion to fund this year's unconstitutional war in Iraq and Bosnia and $460 million dollars of military aid to the former Soviet Union. The VA/ HUD Appropriations Bill funded the Environmental Protection Agency at a record $7.6 Billion, 5% more than the Administration's request. The Environmental Protection Agency has now grown to more than 18,000 employees. Iraq How Americans are Subsidizing Organized Crime in Russia 06 March 2000    Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2000 verse 9 ... Cached Even if the current Hungarian government has given our justice department the go-ahead to open this office, we can be certain some Hungarian citizens will strongly resent it. Those who believe in Hungarian sovereignty will respond with hatred toward Americans just as is happening on a daily basis in Iraq over our routine bombing of that country and the stoning of our troops stationed in Kosovo. Iraq "Buy American," Unless... 12 February 2001    Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 4 ... Cached Of course most politicians claim that they support free trade. Intuitively, most Americans understand that access to foreign markets provides significant benefits to US citizens and American-based corporations. However, we continue to pursue a policy of denying or restricting domestic companies from selling to Cuba, Iraq, Iran, China, and other countries. This inconsistency is especially evident when we consider "export financing," which really is foreign aid designed to help other countries buy American goods. Most Washington politicians support the practice of export financing, arguing that access to foreign markets benefits American companies, and not just foreign consumers. However, the opposite argument is made with regard to our embargo policies. Suddenly, increased trade with countries some want to label as unworthy only benefits sinister foreign consumers, and not domestic producers. This nonsensical position is maintained by many in government who favor government-managed trade which benefits certain chosen special interests. Iraq End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers 25 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don't work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked- when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies. Iraq End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers 25 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 5 ... Cached Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation's farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these areas. The department of Agriculture estimates that Iraq alone represents a $1 billion market for American farm goods. Given our status as one of the world's largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors. Iraq End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers 25 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 7 ... Cached I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. For example, 10 years of trade sanctions against Iraq, not to mention aggressive air patrols and even bombings, have not ended Saddam Hussein's rule. If anything, the political situation has worsened, while the threat to Kuwait remains. The sanctions have, however, created suffering due to critical shortages of food and medicine among the mostly poor inhabitants of Iraq. So while the economic benefits of trade are an important argument against sanctions, we must also consider the humanitarian argument. Our sanctions policies undermine America's position as a humane nation, bolstering the common criticism that we are a bully with no respect for people outside our borders. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately. Iraq Congress Sends Billions Overseas 23 July 2001    Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2001 verse 11 ... Cached o Millions for Iraq, Cambodia, and Sudan, all of which have oppressive governments. Do we really think the citizens will get the money? Iraq U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil 22 October 2001    Texas Straight Talk 22 October 2001 verse 4 ... Cached The sober reality is that on September 11th millions of foreigners abroad were better protected by American armed forces than were our own citizens at home. In fact, on that fateful morning we had tens of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars in weapons deployed worldwide- all standing by helplessly while our citizens were savagely attacked in New York and Washington. It is beyond frustrating to consider that there are literally dozens of places around the globe where an unauthorized commercial jet straying off course would have been confronted by American fighters, yet the New York skyline and even the Pentagon were left almost completely unprotected. The American people have a right to know, for example, why the Iraq-Kuwait border, the DMZ between North and South Korea, and the skies over Serbia were better defended that morning than our own cities, borders, and skies. Iraq U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil 22 October 2001    Texas Straight Talk 22 October 2001 verse 5 ... Cached We must understand that U.S. troops currently are permanently or semi-permanently stationed in more than one hundred countries. As one prominent columnist recently noted, the 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet empire and the end of the Cold War have hardly been peaceful for the United States. Our armed forces have been engaged in dozens of conflicts, including Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo. We currently maintain active military commitments throughout the Middle East, Colombia and Central America, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, central Asia, and the Taiwan Strait. We undoubtedly are involved in more regional conflicts than any other time in our history; in fact, our present obligations make the east vs.west Cold War seem relatively manageable! Yet our military is only half the size it was during the Reagan era. This imbalance between our shrinking armed forces and our ever-growing military role in foreign disputes leaves our own borders woefully unprotected. Iraq U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan 05 November 2001    Texas Straight Talk 05 November 2001 verse 3 ... Cached Even before September 11th, most Americans were well aware of the hostility that many Middle Eastern nations have for the U.S. Our experiences with Iran, Libya, Iraq, and now Afghanistan have understandably soured many Americans on the entire region. Indeed, the majority of anti-American sentiment in the post-Cold War era originates in the Middle East. What many Americans don't realize, however, is the extent to which their own foreign aid tax dollars are spent funding our current and future enemies in the region. Iraq Before We Bomb Baghdad... 04 March 2002    Texas Straight Talk 04 March 2002 verse 3 ... Cached 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. Iraq Before We Bomb Baghdad... 04 March 2002    Texas Straight Talk 04 March 2002 verse 4 ... Cached 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. Iraq Before We Bomb Baghdad... 04 March 2002    Texas Straight Talk 04 March 2002 verse 5 ... Cached 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. Iraq Before We Bomb Baghdad... 04 March 2002    Texas Straight Talk 04 March 2002 verse 7 ... Cached 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. Iraq Before We Bomb Baghdad... 04 March 2002    Texas Straight Talk 04 March 2002 verse 8 ... Cached 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. Iraq American Foreign Policy and the Middle East Powder Keg 01 April 2002    Texas Straight Talk 01 April 2002 verse 7 ... Cached Just as our money never satisfies Israel, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. Foreign aid or not, the Islamic world sees America as a constant aggressor in the Middle East. Muslims resent our role in bringing the Shah of Iran to power, and they resent our permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia. They view our ongoing bombing and sanctions campaign in Iraq as wholly unjustified, believing it harms innocent Iraqis but not Saddam Hussein. They especially resent our tremendous financial support for Israel. In the eyes of many Muslims, to be at war with Israel is to be at war with America. Iraq Predictions for an Unwritten Future 29 April 2002    Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 13 ... Cached The United States- with Tony Blair as head cheerleader- will attack Iraq without proper congressional authority; and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result. Iraq Securing the Homeland? 08 July 2002    Texas Straight Talk 08 July 2002 verse 6 ... Cached As a member of the House International Relations committee (which has jurisdiction over visa rules in the new bill), I will propose immediate changes to our current immigration policies. Specifically, I believe we must stop granting student and diversity visas to individuals from terror-sponsoring states, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of the very countries that openly despise America and refuse to cooperate with our State department in fighting terrorism. Most of the criminals who carried out the September 11th attacks entered the country using student visas, so we hardly should continue to open our doors to students from places like Iraq. If we are serious about conducting a war on terrorism, we cannot simultaneously give aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to live in the U.S. Iraq Will Congress Debate War with Iraq? 05 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 1 ... Cached Will Congress Debate War with Iraq? Iraq Will Congress Debate War with Iraq? 05 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 2 ... Cached 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. Iraq Will Congress Debate War with Iraq? 05 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 3 ... Cached 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. Iraq Will Congress Debate War with Iraq? 05 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 4 ... Cached 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. Iraq Will Congress Debate War with Iraq? 05 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 5 ... Cached 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. Iraq Will Congress Debate War with Iraq? 05 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 6 ... Cached 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. Iraq Will Congress Debate War with Iraq? 05 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 7 ... Cached 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. Iraq Your Taxes Fund South American Bailout 12 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 12 August 2002 verse 8 ... Cached What a shame that our government continues to fund risky overseas bailouts and unconstitutional foreign aid, even as our own nation faces serious financial problems here at home. Congress has lapsed into uncontrolled deficit spending, and billions more will be spent creating the Department of Homeland Security and funding an unwise war in Iraq. The private economy sputters along with little or no growth, while the stock market bubble loses more air almost daily. The pension and retirement plans of millions of Americans have suffered heavy losses, and the very solvency of Social Security is threatened by the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. Meanwhile, our military families and veterans are allowed to live in poverty. In the midst of all these problems at home, how in the world can we justify another nickel for foreign bailouts? Iraq War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law? 26 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 26 August 2002 verse 1 ... Cached War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law? Iraq War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law? 26 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 26 August 2002 verse 2 ... Cached 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. Iraq War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law? 26 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 26 August 2002 verse 3 ... Cached 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. Iraq War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law? 26 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 26 August 2002 verse 4 ... Cached 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. Iraq War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law? 26 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 26 August 2002 verse 5 ... Cached 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? Iraq War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law? 26 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 26 August 2002 verse 6 ... Cached 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. Iraq War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law? 26 August 2002    Texas Straight Talk 26 August 2002 verse 8 ... Cached 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. Iraq Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 1 ... Cached IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT WAR IN IRAQ Iraq Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 2 ... Cached 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: Iraq Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 3 ... Cached 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." Iraq Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 4 ... Cached Is Iraq a real danger to us, or have the war hawks wildly exaggerated the threat posed by this impoverished third-world nation? Iraq Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 5 ... Cached 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? Iraq Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 7 ... Cached 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. Iraq Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 8 ... Cached 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. Iraq Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 9 ... Cached 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? Iraq Important Questions about War in Iraq 03 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2002 verse 10 ... Cached 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? Iraq The Case against War in Iraq 09 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2002 verse 1 ... Cached The Case against War in Iraq Iraq The Case against War in Iraq 09 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2002 verse 2 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Case against War in Iraq 09 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2002 verse 3 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Case against War in Iraq 09 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2002 verse 5 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Case against War in Iraq 09 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2002 verse 7 ... Cached 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. Iraq Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy 16 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 5 ... Cached Meanwhile, Russia and France have made it known that they might be persuaded to support our war effort if the American government guarantees payment for commercial debts owed them by Iraq. This amounts to nothing less than buying allies. Incredibly, the U.S. Treasury may make good on Saddam Hussein’s bad debts, with American taxpayers settling his unpaid bills! Who can possibly believe these kinds of unholy deals represent an acceptable foreign policy? Iraq Will We Bring bin Laden to Justice? 23 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2002 verse 3 ... Cached President Bush has made it clear that he intends to use "all appropriate means" to oust Saddam Hussein, although everyone concedes that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. So why is the same approach not justified for the al Qaida criminals directly responsible for 3000 American deaths? Iraq Will We Bring bin Laden to Justice? 23 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2002 verse 4 ... Cached We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden and his henchmen. One year ago, the desire for retribution against bin Laden was tangible. President Bush referred to finding him "dead or alive." And while the hunger for vengeance was understandable, the practical need to destroy al Qaida before it mounted another terror attack was urgent. Yet we have allowed the passage of time and the false specter of an Iraq threat to distract us from our original purpose. We’re preoccupied with an invasion of Iraq, which actually will benefit bin Laden by removing a secular regime led by his enemy Saddam Hussein. This vacuum may well lead to a more fundamentalist Kurd government in Iraq that aligns itself with al Qaida. Iraq Dump UNESCO! 30 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 30 September 2002 verse 2 ... Cached During his recent speech before the United Nations general assembly, President Bush announced that the United States would rejoin UNESCO, a UN agency that has for decades promoted an anti-American agenda. "Rejoining" of course means funding with American tax dollars. Our new commitment to UNESCO will cost $60 million annually for starters, fully one-quarter of the agency’s budget. Sadly, I believe the administration made this decision as a concession to our globalist critics, who have been relentlessly accusing the President of "unilateralism" for daring to consider acting in Iraq without UN permission. This is done to soften UN opposition to our plans to initiate war. Iraq Congress Becomes Irrelevant in the War Debate 07 October 2002    Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2002 verse 2 ... Cached Last week, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is- a war- and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional "support" for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded "authorizations" that they can back away from easily if necessary. Iraq Congress Becomes Irrelevant in the War Debate 07 October 2002    Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2002 verse 6 ... Cached When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war. Iraq Why Won't Congress Declare War? 14 October 2002    Texas Straight Talk 14 October 2002 verse 3 ... Cached Two weeks ago, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is- a war- and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional "support" for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded "authorizations" that they can back away from easily if necessary. Iraq Why Won't Congress Declare War? 14 October 2002    Texas Straight Talk 14 October 2002 verse 5 ... Cached Already the administration has sought to gain favor with the UN by pledging hundreds of millions of tax dollars to UNESCO. UNESCO is the anti-American "educational" arm of the UN, an organization from which President Reagan heroically removed us in 1984. Now we find ourselves rejoining the agency to soften UN resistance to our plans in Iraq. Iraq Why Won't Congress Declare War? 14 October 2002    Texas Straight Talk 14 October 2002 verse 8 ... Cached When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and victory is elusive. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war. Iraq Legislation for our Military Families and Veterans 21 October 2002    Texas Straight Talk 21 October 2002 verse 2 ... Cached With thousands of our troops now deployed in Afghanistan, and thousands more probably headed to Iraq, it is important to remember the sacrifices made by our military families. Congress should do everything possible to make sure our soldiers and our veterans receive adequate pay, housing, health care, tax relief, and disability benefits. Iraq Legislation for our Military Families and Veterans 21 October 2002    Texas Straight Talk 21 October 2002 verse 7 ... Cached Finally, Congress should end the silence and formally address Gulf War Syndrome, which has had a devastating impact on thousand of veterans who served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As a medical doctor, I believe the evidence behind the existence of the syndrome is now conclusive. The syndrome likely represents several different maladies caused by exposure to conditions specific to the Gulf region at that time. We should be providing medical treatment to our sick Gulf War veterans, not insulting them by insisting that "it’s all in their heads." Congress should lead the way and craft legislation that requires VA hospitals to recognize and treat Gulf War Syndrome like any other illness. It’s the least we can do for the soldiers who risked their lives in the Gulf. Iraq Honoring our Military Veterans 11 November 2002    Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2002 verse 2 ... Cached Although we honor veterans every November, the looming prospect of a second Gulf war makes this year especially meaningful for both our armed forces and those who served in past wars. Not surprisingly, many of the veterans I speak with in Texas urge caution in Iraq. Combat veterans understand perhaps better than any of us that war should always be a last resort, that young people should never be put in harm’s way without very serious deliberation. Iraq Our Incoherent Foreign Policy Fuels Middle East Turmoil 02 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2002 verse 2 ... Cached Thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan, and perhaps hundreds of thousands more are poised to attack Iraq. The justification given for these military invasions is that both nations support terrorism, and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as "allies," is just the latest example of the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East. Iraq What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean? 16 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 1 ... Cached What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean? Iraq What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean? 16 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 2 ... Cached The buzzwords in Washington concerning Iraq these days are "regime change," which in a sense is surprisingly honest. It means the upcoming Gulf War II will not be about protecting Kuwait or stemming Iraqi aggression. The pretenses have been discarded, and now we’ve simply decided Saddam must go. We seem to have very little idea, however, what a post-Saddam Iraq will look like. We should expect another lesson in nation-building, with American troops remaining in the country indefinitely while billions of our tax dollars attempt to prop up a new government. Iraq What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean? 16 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 3 ... Cached With this goal of regime change in mind, the administration recently announced plans to spend nearly $100 million training an Iraqi militia force to help overthrow Hussein. A NATO airbase in southern Hungary will be used for military training. The problem, however, will be choosing individuals from at least five different factions vying for power in Iraq, including the fundamentalist Kurds in the north. Given the religious, ethnic, and social complexities that make up the Middle East, do we really believe that somehow we can choose the "good guys" who deserve to rule Iraq? Iraq What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean? 16 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 5 ... Cached Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are perfect examples of our onetime "allies" who accepted our help yet failed to do our bidding for long. Both gladly welcomed American money, weapons, and military training during the 1980s. With bin Laden we sought to frustrate the Soviet advance into Afghanistan, and many Pentagon hawks undoubtedly felt vindicated when the Russian army retreated. Yet twenty years later, bin Laden is a rabid American-hating madman whose operatives are armed with our own Stinger missiles. Similarly, we supported the relatively moderate Hussein in the hopes of neutralizing a radically fundamentalist Iran. Yet this military strengthening of Iraq led to its invasion of Kuwait and our subsequent military involvement in the gulf. Today the Hussein regime is belligerently anti-American, and any biological or chemical weapons he possesses were supplied by our own government. Iraq What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean? 16 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 7 ... Cached The practical consequences of meddling in the domestic politics of foreign nations are clearly disastrous. We should remember, however, that it is also wrong in principle to interfere with the self-determination rights of foreign peoples. Consider how angry Americans become when Europeans or Mexicans merely comment on our elections, or show a decided preference for one candidate. We rightfully feel that our politics are simply none of the world’s business, yet we seem blind to the anger created when we use military force to install governments in places like Iraq. The unspoken question is this: What gives us the right to decide who governs Iraq or any other foreign country? Apparently our own loss of national sovereignty, as we surrender more and more authority to organizations like the UN and WTO, mirrors our lack of respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations. Iraq Waning Prospects for Peace in 2003? 30 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2002 verse 2 ... Cached As 2002 draws to a close, the prospects for peace seem bleak in the world’s troubled Middle East region. Afghanistan remains in chaos, despite the ouster of the Taliban regime by American forces. Israel and the occupied West Bank territories suffer terrible incidents of violence almost daily, forcing the cancellation of Christmas celebrations in Bethlehem. Although the administration has not yet ordered a full-scale military mobilization into Iraq, war hawks in the Pentagon and Defense department assure us that such an attack is imminent. Iraq Waning Prospects for Peace in 2003? 30 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2002 verse 4 ... Cached Defense Secretary Rumsfeld quickly responded to the North Koreans by declaring that the United States can fight simultaneous wars with Iraq and North Korea if necessary. But can we be certain this is true, especially after the demoralizing reductions in our military strength during the Clinton years? Does this mean we will stretch our military forces even thinner, to fight three or five or ten conflicts, if necessary to play world policeman in the new American empire? Iraq Waning Prospects for Peace in 2003? 30 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2002 verse 5 ... Cached The seriousness of the North Korean threat is evidenced by strong reactions from France, Britain, Japan, Russia, and even China. In fact, a recent poll showed that an overwhelming number of Americans view North Korea as more of a threat than Iraq. Iraq Waning Prospects for Peace in 2003? 30 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2002 verse 8 ... Cached The good news is that public support for an invasion of Iraq has diminished, and the situation in Korea will only raise more questions about the wisdom of a second Gulf war. If the argument for invading Iraq is based on the threat it poses to American national security, a much stronger argument can be made for invading North Korea. Many Americans now believe Saddam Hussein can be neutralized without sending U.S troops into Baghdad. With tens of thousands of young American soldiers already active in Afghanistan, and hundreds of thousands ready to deploy in Iraq, the possibility of a third conflict in Korea may be too much for even the loudest pro-war voices in Washington to sell to the American public. Iraq Conscription is Collectivism 13 January 2003    Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2003 verse 4 ... Cached So why is the idea of a draft even considered? One answer is that our military forces are spread far too thin, engaged in conflicts around the globe that are none of our business. With hundreds of thousands of troops already stationed in literally hundreds of foreign nations, we simply don’t have enough soldiers to invade and occupy every country we label a threat to the new American empire. Military leaders conservatively estimate that 250,000 troops will be needed to invade Iraq, while tens of thousands already occupy Afghanistan. Add another conflict to the mix- in North Korea, the Balkans, or any number of hot spots- and our military capabilities would quickly be exhausted. Some in Washington would rather draft more young bodies than rethink our role as world policeman and bring some of our troops home. Iraq Buying Friends with Foreign Aid 24 February 2003    Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2003 verse 2 ... Cached With an American invasion of Iraq imminent, nations in the region are increasingly worried about the political, social, and economic consequences of a second Gulf war. Not surprisingly, Jordan, Israel, Kuwait, and Turkey are demanding more money from the U.S. to offset the costs, economic and otherwise, of such a war. Other Middle East countries are sure to follow. Yet the more foreign aid we send to the Middle East, the more hopelessly entangled we become in the intractable conflicts that define it. Worse yet, the practice of buying friends casts very serious doubt on the lofty claims that we are promoting democracy. If our plans for Iraq will bring peace and stability to the region, why do we have to buy off the Middle East governments that stand to benefit? The truth is that those governments, even our ostensible allies, have very serious doubts about the wisdom of our proposed invasion of Iraq. Money- lots of it- makes them more amenable to our cause. Iraq Buying Friends with Foreign Aid 24 February 2003    Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2003 verse 3 ... Cached Turkey in particular has shown incredible gall in demanding billions for its cooperation with our war efforts. Turkey shares a border with northern Iraq, and its air bases could serve as an important staging area for American forces. Yet Turkey is demanding a whopping $30 billion in exchange for its support of the war and use of its airfields. Unfortunately, the administration appears ready to accept this blackmail if a slightly lower dollar amount can be negotiated. Iraq Buying Friends with Foreign Aid 24 February 2003    Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2003 verse 5 ... Cached Turkey wants more than our money, however. It also wants to control the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The Kurds in both Iraq and Turkey desire an independent Kurdish state, which the Turkish government fiercely resists. Turkish officials want an agreement that will allow thousands of their soldiers to advance into Kurdish northern Iraq on the heels of American forces. This would be a shameful insult to the Kurdish people, who at least have been consistent foes of Saddam Hussein. Iraq Buying Friends with Foreign Aid 24 February 2003    Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2003 verse 6 ... Cached The billions we will give Turkey are just the tip of the iceberg. The foreign aid feeding frenzy will only intensify as America expands its role as world policeman. Already it is routine for some nations to send negotiating teams to Washington during the appropriations process, intent on securing the foreign aid loot to which they feel so entitled. Just as hordes of domestic lobbyists roam the halls of Congress seeking federal money for every conceivable special interest, we should expect foreign lobbyists to increasingly look for money from American taxpayers. In the new era of American empire, foreign aid spending serves as the carrot. Iraq will get the stick, at least at first. Once we occupy it, of course, we will spend billions there as well. Iraq The Myth of War Prosperity 10 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 2 ... Cached War has many costs, both human and economic, that must be carefully considered now that an invasion of Iraq appears imminent. The greatest cost of war, of course, is the cost in human lives. We all hope and pray that no Americans are killed or injured in Iraq. But the economic costs of war must also be considered. Iraq The Myth of War Prosperity 10 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 4 ... Cached Bastiat’s broken window fallacy applies to our current dilemma in the Middle East. The situation in Iraq is the broken pane of glass, and “fixing” it will appear to benefit the economy in the short run. Certain industries will certainly benefit. But the hidden opportunity costs will again be enormous. The hidden costs will be the loss of economic activity that would have occurred if the money spent waging war had instead been spent at home. Iraq The Myth of War Prosperity 10 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 5 ... Cached Inflation is certain during wartime, as the Treasury prints more money to fund military expenses. Our dollar will become weaker against other currencies because of the uncertainty caused by turmoil in the Middle East. Control of Iraqi oil wells, which is often cited as an economic windfall from the war, is not guaranteed and might not happen quickly. Oil prices almost certainly will skyrocket and will remain inflated after the war, especially given the deteriorating buying power of our own dollars. Iraq The Myth of War Prosperity 10 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 6 ... Cached We should expect the financial markets to react badly to an invasion of Iraq. Although military victory should be swift, prolonged urban fighting in Baghdad or other cities would cause investor confidence to plunge. This lack of confidence in the U.S. economy will make trade more difficult and cause our trade deficit to rise. Iraq The Myth of War Prosperity 10 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 7 ... Cached Furthermore, taxes or deficits necessarily rise when the nation’s productivity falls because of war. Estimates of war spending range from $100 billion to $200 billion, a figure that does not include tens of billions needed for nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq. As with past wars, a huge surge in spending will happen as tax revenues are falling dramatically. This spending can be sustained only by printing more money, borrowing from foreign nations, or raising taxes- all of which harm the economy. Iraq The Myth of War Prosperity 10 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 8 ... Cached The greatest economic cost of war, however, comes from the expansion in the size and scope of government. Government always grows during wars and other crises. As economist Murray Rothbard noted, government uses crises to “Engineer the great leaps forward,” in the size of the state. When the crisis ends, government never returns to its former size. As government expands, individual liberty necessarily shrinks. True prosperity cannot exist without individual liberty and its corollaries of limited government, property rights, and free markets. Ultimately, war leaves us with less freedom at home. The sad irony is that while our soldiers have fought for the freedom of Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and Iraq, the government uses war to steadily diminish freedom here at home. While we fight a war in Iraq, we must also fight to maintain and restore individual liberty in America. Iraq Time to Renounce the United Nations? 17 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 2 ... Cached Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval. The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing. Most Americans rightfully resent this arrogant attitude toward our national sovereignty and don’t care what the UN thinks about our war plans. Perhaps our heritage as a nation of people who do not take kindly to being told what to do is intact. Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect. Iraq Time to Renounce the United Nations? 17 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 3 ... Cached The administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization. But it sends a mixed message by doing everything it can to obtain such authorization. Efforts to build a “coalition” through the promise of billions in foreign aid dollars only reinforce the perception that we’re trying to buy support for the war. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding. The bizarre irony is while we may act unilaterally in Iraq, the very justification for our invasion is that we are enforcing UN resolutions! Iraq Time to Renounce the United Nations? 17 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 4 ... Cached Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America. Iraq Honor Veterans with a Better Budget 24 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 24 March 2003 verse 4 ... Cached Unfortunately, the trust that members of our armed forces put in our government has been breached time and time again, and last week’s budget vote represents anther blow to veterans. Even as we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iraq, Congress can’t get its priorities straight. Iraq Honor Veterans with a Better Budget 24 March 2003    Texas Straight Talk 24 March 2003 verse 5 ... Cached We should remember that Gulf War I and II will swell the ranks of our combat veterans, many of whom will need medical care as they grow older. Congress should immediately end the silence and formally address Gulf War Syndrome, which has had a devastating impact on veterans who served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As a medical doctor, I believe the syndrome is very real, and likely represents several different maladies caused by exposure to conditions specific to the Gulf region at the time. Congress and the Veterans Administration should stop insulting our Gulf War veterans and recognize that the syndrome is a serious illness that needs treatment. We can only hope and pray that our soldiers in Iraq today do not suffer from similar illnesses in the future. Congress must, however, ensure adequate funding for the medical care that today’s soldiers will someday need. Iraq War Profiteers 07 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2003 verse 2 ... Cached 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. Iraq War Profiteers 07 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2003 verse 3 ... Cached 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. Iraq War Profiteers 07 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2003 verse 6 ... Cached -$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?; Iraq War Profiteers 07 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2003 verse 16 ... Cached -$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; Iraq War Profiteers 07 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2003 verse 24 ... Cached 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. Iraq Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America 28 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 1 ... Cached Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America Iraq Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America 28 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 2 ... Cached As the heaviest fighting in Iraq comes to a close, questions about what kind of government will be established dominate the news. Looting and lawlessness are the order of the day in the inevitable vacuum created by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Not surprisingly, the United Nations- at the urging of France, Germany, and Russia- wants to fill that vacuum and play the central role in postwar Iraq. If the Iraqi people ever hope to enjoy any measure of self-determination, UN occupation must be resisted. Iraq Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America 28 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 3 ... Cached Is the UN demand to oversee postwar Iraq remotely justified? An increasing number of Americans say “No.” In fact, more and more Americans are rejecting the very legitimacy of the UN, openly calling for the US to withdraw from the organization. Even mainstream Washington pundits on the right have begun to question the wisdom of continued US participation in the UN. Iraq Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America 28 April 2003    Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 4 ... Cached I happen to agree with these new critics of the UN, having advocated getting out of the organization for twenty years. Obviously many Americans now want out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq, and certainly America should never let its national security become a matter of UN consensus. But this growing anti-UN sentiment provides an opportunity to make a larger point, namely that participation in the UN is fundamentally incompatible with American sovereignty and the Constitution. Iraq So Much for Social Conservatism in Congress 05 May 2003    Texas Straight Talk 05 May 2003 verse 9 ... Cached Sadly, this $15 billion expenditure comes even as Congress is cutting funding for veterans by roughly the same amount. The Treasury is running record deficits, the Pentagon is engaged in enormously expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and veterans’ programs are badly underfunded- yet still Congress is sending billions overseas for yet another dubious and unconstitutional program. This should anger every American who still believes in the true conservative tenets of limited government, fiscal restraint, and private charity instead of social welfare programs. Iraq The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 1 ... Cached The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq Iraq The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 2 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 3 ... Cached But as our commitment in Iraq continues to expand, how far off are these statements? Iraq The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 4 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 5 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 6 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 8 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 9 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 10 ... Cached 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. Iraq The Terrible Cost of Government 28 July 2003    Texas Straight Talk 28 July 2003 verse 5 ... Cached For those who desperately want to see the size and scope of the federal government reduced, the first Bush term is a very serious disappointment. Spending levels are approximately 22% higher than when Clinton left office. Health care spending has increased 36% in three years, education spending has increased 26%, and “community and regional development” spending, which includes boondoggles like HUD, has increased 31%. These purely domestic spending increases cannot be excused by terrorism or the war in Iraq. Iraq Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq? 01 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 01 September 2003 verse 1 ... Cached Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq? Iraq Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq? 01 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 01 September 2003 verse 2 ... Cached 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. Iraq Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq? 01 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 01 September 2003 verse 3 ... Cached 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. Iraq Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq? 01 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 01 September 2003 verse 4 ... Cached 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. Iraq Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq? 01 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 01 September 2003 verse 5 ... Cached 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? Iraq Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq? 01 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 01 September 2003 verse 6 ... Cached 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. Iraq War and Red Ink 15 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 15 September 2003 verse 2 ... Cached The president plans to request another $87 billion from Congress to fund operations in Iraq, a number that not surprisingly is much higher than originally called for by the administration. It’s not surprising because everything government does costs more than originally expected, but it’s important to note that some in the administration who warned about the true financial costs of an Iraq war were forced to leave. Iraq War and Red Ink 15 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 15 September 2003 verse 3 ... Cached Even the White House concedes this spending will swell the single-year budget deficit to a record $525 billion. This is money the Treasury simply does not have, which means it must be borrowed, printed, or raised through taxes. None of these options are good for the American economy. It is especially sobering to consider just how much we eventually might spend in Iraq given our open-ended mission to rebuild it. A decade in Iraq easily could cost American taxpayers one trillion dollars and cause endless budget deficits. Iraq War and Red Ink 15 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 15 September 2003 verse 4 ... Cached The question we might ask ourselves is this: What if our efforts to rebuild Iraq and install a democratic government do not work? Are we prepared to spend less on domestic programs like Social Security, welfare, and education? Are we prepared to raise taxes? Can we continue to borrow money abroad? Of course Americans are always prepared to make hard choices and sacrifice for causes in which they truly believe, but the stark economic realities of occupying Iraq have not been fairly presented. Iraq War and Red Ink 15 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 15 September 2003 verse 5 ... Cached Remember, the American people first were told they must pay to invade Iraq; now they are told they must pay to rebuild it. Those who complain risk being called unpatriotic or seen as not supporting the troops. But it’s not unpatriotic to ask how much Iraq is worth to us, and whether rebuilding it is more important than countless domestic priorities. “Whatever It Takes” is an easy mantra for politicians, but you will pay the bills long after the current administration is gone. Iraq War and Red Ink 15 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 15 September 2003 verse 6 ... Cached We can never hope to impose western, American-style democracy upon a nation that has been rooted in Islam for more than a thousand years. No matter what we say or do, millions of Iraqis and Muslims believe Iraq has simply been invaded by the Christian west. It makes no difference whether American, European, or UN military forces are involved; all are viewed as outsiders seeking to colonize and rule Iraq according to western values. We cannot expect to overcome their resistance and bitterness quickly or easily, and, if we truly intend to stay the course until democracy flourishes in Iraq, we better be prepared to stay quite a long time. Iraq War and Red Ink 15 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 15 September 2003 verse 7 ... Cached For many in Washington it simply does not matter whether the cause is Iraq, the war on terror, or any other perceived crisis. Any justification to expand the state is welcomed by politicians, lobbyists, and special interests alike. Before we spend a borrowed fortune in Iraq, we might remember the words of General Douglas MacArthur: Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 1 ... Cached Your Money In Iraq Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 2 ... Cached Ambassador Paul Bremer, head of the US provisional administration in Iraq, appeared before Congress last week to lobby hard for another $87 billion for nation building. This figure is in addition to the nearly $80 billion we’ve already spent in Iraq, and the new funding request is for 2004 only. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2004- and the administration has made it clear that reconstruction will be a long-term project- American taxpayers easily could spend one trillion dollars over the coming years. Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 3 ... Cached The stark reality is that the federal government will fund the open-ended occupation of Iraq either by raising taxes, borrowing overseas, or printing more money. All three options are bad for average Americans. Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 4 ... Cached It’s important the American people know exactly what they will be paying for in Iraq. The $87 billion requested is such a huge sum that it seems meaningless to most of us. The details, however, will astound anyone who resents seeing their tax dollars spent overseas. Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 7 ... Cached -$20 million for business classes, at a cost of $10,000 per Iraqi student; Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 8 ... Cached -$900 million for imported kerosene and diesel, even though Iraq has huge oil reserves; Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 9 ... Cached -$54 million to study the Iraqi postal system; Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 12 ... Cached -$200,000 each for Iraqis in a witness protection program; Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 15 ... Cached I doubt very seriously that most Americans would approve of their tax dollars being used to fund these projects in Iraq. Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 16 ... Cached Criticism of this foreign aid spending in Iraq is not restricted to the political left. Conservative groups and politicians are increasingly angry at the administration’s exorbitant spending. For example, Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee sits on the Appropriations committee, which is responsible for all spending bills. He has a modest idea: insist the reconstruction money be paid back as a loan when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Similarly, Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona wants to offset every dollar spent reconstructing Iraq with spending cuts in others areas, especially given the amount of wasteful pork in the federal budget. But the White House is adamantly opposed to both ideas. Why is a supposedly conservative administration resisting even the slightest attempts at fiscal restraint? Iraq Your Money in Iraq 29 September 2003    Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 17 ... Cached We have embarked on probably the most extensive nation-building experiment in history. Our provisional authority seeks nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down- all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will all pay to provide job-training for Iraqis, while more and more Americans find themselves out of work. We will pay to secure the Iraqi borders, while our own borders remain porous and vulnerable. We will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq, leaving American taxpayers with less money to provide these things for themselves at home. We will saddle future generations with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one lawmakers should answer now by refusing to approve another nickel for nation building. Iraq $20 Billion Giveaway Unjustified 20 October 2003    Texas Straight Talk 20 October 2003 verse 2 ... Cached Congress passed an $87 billion spending bill last week to fund our occupation of Iraq, $20 billion of which is an outright foreign aid giveaway of your money for all kinds of civic and social programs there. This $20 billion was tied to money for troop support, so that members of Congress who object to wasteful and unconstitutional foreign aid would feel compelled to vote in favor of the bill. This new spending comes on top of the $80 billion we have already spent in Iraq, and the price tag easily could reach one trillion dollars if our occupation drags on for several years. Iraq $20 Billion Giveaway Unjustified 20 October 2003    Texas Straight Talk 20 October 2003 verse 3 ... Cached First and foremost, we simply do not have the $87 billion to spend. The federal government literally will have to borrow or print the money needed for our ongoing occupation of Iraq. This new spending will only add to the record budget deficit of $525 billion projected for 2004. At this rate, the Treasury will face single-year deficits of one trillion dollars by the end of the decade. Iraq $20 Billion Giveaway Unjustified 20 October 2003    Texas Straight Talk 20 October 2003 verse 4 ... Cached Second, every attempt to make portions of the $87 billion a loan was defeated. Several House members argued that providing money for American troops is one thing, a naked foreign aid giveaway another. After all, Iraq has trillions of dollars worth of oil reserves. Why should future generations of Americans, rather than future generations of Iraqis, pay the bills for creating a new Iraq? If we really believe we have liberated the Iraqis, surely they should be asked to repay some of the financial costs. Yet both the House leadership and the administration vehemently insisted that the full amount be provided as a gift, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Iraq $20 Billion Giveaway Unjustified 20 October 2003    Texas Straight Talk 20 October 2003 verse 5 ... Cached Five years ago, former President George Bush Sr. described his thoughts in the aftermath of the first Gulf war. When we think about our occupation of Iraq and the staggering costs--both human and financial--Mr. Bush’s words are stunning: Iraq $20 Billion Giveaway Unjustified 20 October 2003    Texas Straight Talk 20 October 2003 verse 6 ... Cached “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 viable 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…Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.” Iraq $20 Billion Giveaway Unjustified 20 October 2003    Texas Straight Talk 20 October 2003 verse 7 ... Cached This is sound thinking and sound advice by the elder Mr. Bush. Had Congress heeded his words, we would not be voting to spend even more money nation building in Iraq. Iraq Mistreating Soldiers and Veterans 10 November 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 November 2003 verse 2 ... Cached Congress recently voted to send $87 billion to Iraq, money that will be used to build everything from roads to power plants to hospitals. Yet while Congress appears ready to rubber-stamp unlimited monies for nation building in Iraq, thousands of our own soldiers at home are languishing with substandard medical care. Iraq Mistreating Soldiers and Veterans 10 November 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 November 2003 verse 3 ... Cached You may have read about conditions at Fort Stewart, Georgia, where hundreds of injured reserve and National Guard soldiers are housed in deplorable conditions and forced to wait months just to see a doctor. These soldiers made huge sacrifices, leaving their families and jobs to fight in Iraq. Now they find themselves living in hot, crowded, unsanitary barracks and waiting far too long to see overworked doctors. This is hardly the heroes’ welcome they might have expected. Only an expose in a major newspaper brought attention to their plight, prompting an embarrassed Defense department to rush additional doctors to the base. Iraq Mistreating Soldiers and Veterans 10 November 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 November 2003 verse 4 ... Cached Many of these men and women expressed shock at their treatment. They assumed wounded soldiers returning from Iraq would receive priority treatment, given the “support the troops” rhetoric coming from Washington. Their complaints went ignored, however, until the media became involved. Iraq Mistreating Soldiers and Veterans 10 November 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 November 2003 verse 5 ... Cached Similar mistreatment of soldiers has been evident throughout our occupation of Iraq. Some wounded soldiers convalescing at Walter Reed hospital in Washington were forced to pay for hospital meals from their own pockets! Other soldiers returning stateside for a two-week liberty had to buy their own airfare home from the east coast. Still others have paid for desert boots, night vision goggles, and other military necessities with personal funds. It’s shocking that our troops are forced to pay for basic items that should be supplied to them or paid from the defense budget. Iraq Mistreating Soldiers and Veterans 10 November 2003    Texas Straight Talk 10 November 2003 verse 8 ... Cached Members of our armed forces deserve more than platitudes when they return from foreign wars with illnesses or disabilities. Unfortunately, the trust our soldiers place in the federal government to provide for their health care has been breached time and time again. Last week’s partial grant of concurrent receipt benefits will prove woefully inadequate for most of our disabled veterans, veterans who could be well-served with just a fraction of the billions Congress gave away in Iraq. Iraq Congress Goes AWOL 09 February 2004    Texas Straight Talk 09 February 2004 verse 2 ... Cached Controversy is brewing in Washington over intelligence failures underlying the administration’s claims about the threat posed by Iraq. The president has appointed a new commission to study the issue, but its true mission may be political damage control for the November election. CIA director George Tenet, knowing he is the most convenient scapegoat, carefully distanced himself from the White House last week. He admitted that bad information caused the agency to “overestimate” Iraq’s weapons capability, and that the Iraqi threat was never labeled “imminent.” Iraq Congress Goes AWOL 09 February 2004    Texas Straight Talk 09 February 2004 verse 4 ... Cached Congress is to blame for its craven failure to seriously debate, much less declare, war in Iraq. The Constitution squarely charges Congress with the duty to declare war, a weighty responsibility that our founders thought should rest with the body most directly responsible to the people. The president’s status as commander-in-chief grants him the power only to execute war, not to decide whether war is justified. This is not seriously debatable by anyone who honestly examines the Constitution and the Federalist papers. Iraq Congress Goes AWOL 09 February 2004    Texas Straight Talk 09 February 2004 verse 6 ... Cached The furor over bad intelligence is a little late, to put it mildly. A proper investigation and debate by Congress clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war. The consequences cannot be undone. Hundreds of American soldiers have been killed, thousands more maimed or injured. More than one hundred billion dollars have been spent, and billions more will be needed to support our open-ended occupation of Iraq. The current after-the-fact debate is hollow and political. We now see those who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the president the power he wanted, posturing as his harshest critics. Iraq Congress Goes AWOL 09 February 2004    Texas Straight Talk 09 February 2004 verse 7 ... Cached The administration rushes to claim that the justifications for war do not matter, because Saddam was worthy of removal anyway. But we’ve heard that tired argument a million times. Is the president prepared to commit troops to remove every bad guy around the globe? Of course not. Iraq has been in this administration’s crosshairs since well before September 11th. It does matter if the administration lied or exaggerated to win public support; it does matter if our war in Iraq was just or unjust. Iraq Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 1 ... Cached Iraq One Year Later Iraq Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 2 ... Cached 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. Iraq Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 3 ... Cached 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. Iraq Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 4 ... Cached Were these sacrifices worth it? To answer that question, we have to look at the justifications given for our invasion of Iraq. Iraq Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 5 ... Cached 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. Iraq Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 6 ... Cached 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. Iraq Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 7 ... Cached 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.” Iraq Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 8 ... Cached 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. Iraq Iraq One Year Later 22 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 9 ... Cached 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. Iraq Passing the Buck in Iraq 10 May 2004    Texas Straight Talk 10 May 2004 verse 1 ... Cached Passing the Buck in Iraq Iraq Passing the Buck in Iraq 10 May 2004    Texas Straight Talk 10 May 2004 verse 2 ... Cached 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. Iraq Passing the Buck in Iraq 10 May 2004    Texas Straight Talk 10 May 2004 verse 3 ... Cached 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. Iraq Passing the Buck in Iraq 10 May 2004    Texas Straight Talk 10 May 2004 verse 4 ... Cached 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. Iraq Passing the Buck in Iraq 10 May 2004    Texas Straight Talk 10 May 2004 verse 5 ... Cached 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. Iraq Superpower or Superdebtor? 07 June 2004    Texas Straight Talk 07 June 2004 verse 2 ... Cached Since the passage of the “Iraq Liberation Act” in 1998, the US government has spent more than 40 million taxpayer dollars on the Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi. As we now know, Chalabi in turn fed the US government lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda in the hope that the US would invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and put him in power. To hedge his bets, it appears he made a few deals with the Iranians, delivering US intelligence to that country. How’s that for gratitude? Now we see that the US has raided the house of Ahmed Chalabi and seized his papers and computers to see how much damage he may have caused the US with his Iranian dealings. Iraq Torture, War, and Presidential Powers 14 June 2004    Texas Straight Talk 14 June 2004 verse 7 ... Cached 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”? Iraq The 9-11 Commission Charade 23 August 2004    Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 5 ... Cached The Commissioners recommend the government spend billions of dollars spreading pro-US propaganda overseas, as if that will convince the world to love us. What we have forgotten in the years since the end of the Cold War is that actions speak louder than words. The US didn't need propaganda in the captive nations of Eastern Europe during the Cold War because people knew us by our deeds. They could see the difference between the United States and their Soviet overlords. That is why, given the first chance, they chose freedom. Yet everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America. Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends. Iraq Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security 25 October 2004    Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 9 ... Cached Ultimately, debt is slavery. Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders. So when you hear a politician saying America will do “whatever it takes” to fight terrorism or rebuild Iraq or end poverty or provide health care for all, what they really mean is they are willing to sink America even deeper into debt. We’re told that foreign wars and expanded entitlements will somehow make America more secure, but insolvency is hardly the foundation for security. Only when we stop trying to remake the world in our image, and reject the entitlement state at home, will we begin to create a more secure America that is not a financial slave to foreign creditors. Iraq Ignoring Reality in Iraq 13 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 1 ... Cached Ignoring Reality in Iraq Iraq Ignoring Reality in Iraq 13 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 3 ... Cached 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. Iraq Ignoring Reality in Iraq 13 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 4 ... Cached 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. Iraq Ignoring Reality in Iraq 13 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 5 ... Cached 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. Iraq Ignoring Reality in Iraq 13 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 6 ... Cached 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. Iraq Ignoring Reality in Iraq 13 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 7 ... Cached 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. Iraq Ignoring Reality in Iraq 13 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 8 ... Cached 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. Iraq Ignoring Reality in Iraq 13 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 9 ... Cached 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. Iraq Another UN Insult 03 January 2005    Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2005 verse 6 ... Cached Obviously, many of those now calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. Few Americans realize, however, that the resolution passed by Congress cited various UN resolutions more than twenty times as justification for invading Iraq-- in contrast to the media images of President Bush “going it alone” and disregarding the UN. So despite the anti-UN bluster from the right, a Republican president’s stated reason for invading Iraq was that it failed to obey UN resolutions! Iraq What does Freedom Really Mean? 07 February 2005    Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 4 ... Cached 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. Iraq What does Freedom Really Mean? 07 February 2005    Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 7 ... Cached 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. Iraq Where is Your Money Going? 21 March 2005    Texas Straight Talk 21 March 2005 verse 5 ... Cached Remember the optimistic claims about how the Iraq war would pay for itself? The liberated Iraqis would exploit the country’s oil resources and gratefully write a check to Uncle Sam, so the story went. Yet we don’t hear much about repayment from the Iraqis these days. American taxpayers already have spent over $200 billion in Iraq, and now Congress is digging us deeper into debt with the supplemental bill. Iraq Where is Your Money Going? 21 March 2005    Texas Straight Talk 21 March 2005 verse 9 ... Cached -$582 million to build a new American embassy in Iraq, an outrageous sum considering that entire luxury resorts are built for less than $500 million; Iraq Empty Rhetoric for Veterans 04 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 04 April 2005 verse 4 ... Cached Unfortunately, the trust that members of our armed forces put in their government has been breached time and time again, and the recent budget vote represents anther blow to veterans. Even as we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iraq, Congress can’t get its priorities straight. Iraq Empty Rhetoric for Veterans 04 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 04 April 2005 verse 5 ... Cached Our invasion of Iraq will swell the ranks of our combat veterans, many of whom will need medical care as they grow older. Sadly, health issues arising from the first war with Iraq still have not been addressed. Congress should immediately end the silence and formally address Gulf War Syndrome, which has had a devastating impact on veterans who served in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As a medical doctor, I believe the syndrome is very real, and likely represents several different maladies caused by exposure to conditions specific to the Gulf region at the time. Congress and the VA should stop insulting Gulf War veterans and recognize that the syndrome is a serious illness that needs treatment. We can only hope and pray that our soldiers in Iraq today do not suffer from similar illnesses in the future. Iraq Theology, Not Politics 11 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 5 ... Cached Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America-- and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories. Iraq Why Do We Fund UNESCO? 18 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 18 April 2005 verse 11 ... Cached President Reagan’s politically brave withdrawal from UNESCO portended an era of greater disengagement from the United Nations itself. Congress can revitalize that worthy goal by urging the administration to rethink its terrible decision to entangle the American people with an organization as rotten as UNESCO. I recently introduced a congressional resolution urging an official withdrawal from UNESCO, and I plan to attach the resolution as an amendment to a foreign aid spending bill this summer. It will be interesting to see whether the same members of Congress who savaged the UN before the Iraq war actually vote to get America out of UNESCO. Iraq What Should America do for Africa? 11 July 2005    Texas Straight Talk 11 July 2005 verse 4 ... Cached The White House attempted to quell criticism that America is not doing enough to save Africa by announcing that the U.S. would double its economic aid to the continent, from $4.3 billion to $8.6 billion, over the next few years. Neither Congress nor the American people were consulted prior to this pronouncement, I might add. I think the public might not share the administration’s generous mood, especially as we spend billions in Iraq and face single year deficits of $500 billion. Frankly, a federal government with nearly $8 trillion in debt has no business giving money to anybody. Iraq Immigration and the Welfare State 08 August 2005    Texas Straight Talk 08 August 2005 verse 10 ... Cached Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual- including a potential terrorist- can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria. Iraq Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting 22 August 2005    Texas Straight Talk 22 August 2005 verse 7 ... Cached Third, future administrations are unlikely to challenge a foreign policy orthodoxy that views America as the world’s savior. We are hemorrhaging billions of dollars every month in Iraq, and we waste billions more every year through foreign aid and overseas meddling. A foreign policy based on nation-building and the imposition of “democracy” abroad, in direct contravention of our founders’ admonitions, is not economically sustainable. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly one trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. A permanent military presence in Iraq and the wider Middle East will cost enormous amounts of money. Iraq Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy 05 September 2005    Texas Straight Talk 05 September 2005 verse 7 ... Cached Turmoil in the Middle East demonstrates that we cannot depend on OPEC nations to make up for our lack of domestic production. As recently as 2002, before we went into Iraq, oil cost less than $20 per barrel. Now it’s nearly $70 per barrel. Before the war, many predicted that a renewed flow of cheap Iraqi oil would benefit American consumers. The opposite has taken place. Iraqi oil production has come to a halt, and OPEC prices have risen steadily over the last few years. Iraq Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy 05 September 2005    Texas Straight Talk 05 September 2005 verse 8 ... Cached Consider this: Iraqis can buy gas for as little as five cents per gallon, courtesy of American taxpayers! We’re talking about imported refined gas, because Iraqi refineries are not operating. Iraqi officials, using American tax dollars, buy this fuel from the Saudis or other OPEC nations at market rates. This subsidy to Iraq cost us nearly $3 billion in 2004 alone. What kind of foreign policy justifies using your tax dollars to subsidize gas prices in an oil-rich nation, while prices skyrocket in the U.S.? We must change our priorities and focus our resources on the American people. We cannot count on using military or political influence in the Middle East to keep gas prices low. Iraq Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy 05 September 2005    Texas Straight Talk 05 September 2005 verse 10 ... Cached Electric, hybrid, and alternative fuel vehicles may be the future, but for the foreseeable future the American economy will continue to depend on oil. We must face this reality and increase the number of domestic refineries, while considering immediate tax relief at the pump. Long term, we must rethink our foreign policy to focus on the interests of American citizens rather than spending billions on nation-building exercises. We are spending more than one billion dollars every week in Iraq, and thousands of National Guard soldiers are assigned there. Those dollars and that manpower are sorely needed in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. Iraq Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad 07 November 2005    Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 3 ... Cached In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and with an ongoing war in Iraq that costs more than $1 billion per week, taxpayers might think Congress has better things to do with $21 billion than send it overseas. Yet that’s exactly what Congress did last Friday, approving a useless and counterproductive foreign aid spending bill. Never mind that the total federal debt recently topped $8 trillion, or that a major US city was virtually destroyed only a few months ago. Arrogant is the only word to describe a Congress that cares so little about its own taxpaying citizens while pretending to know what is best for the world. Iraq Too Little, Too Late 14 November 2005    Texas Straight Talk 14 November 2005 verse 9 ... Cached Furthermore, we need to get our budget cutting priorities in order. Why are we cutting domestic programs while we continue to spend billions on infrastructure in Iraq? In just the past two weeks Congress approved a $21 billion foreign aid bill and a $130 million scheme to provide water for developing nations. Why in the world aren't these boondoggles cut first? Iraq Peace and Prosperity in 2006? 02 January 2006    Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached The ongoing war in Iraq, hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and congressional scandals all served to make 2005 a tough year for America. We can hope and pray that 2006 is a happier and more peaceful year for our nation. Iraq Peace and Prosperity in 2006? 02 January 2006    Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 4 ... Cached All Americans, regardless of their views on the Iraq war, can share the hope that the killing in that country will end in 2006-- and that our troops can begin to come home. Iraq Peace and Prosperity in 2006? 02 January 2006    Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 5 ... Cached Our goal in Iraq at this point must be self-determination for the Iraqi people, nothing more and nothing less. Nation building doesn't work and we can't afford it. We should seek to get our troops out of the country as soon as possible and remain neutral toward the various factions still vying for power. The ultimate solution may be for Iraq to break up into several countries based on ethnic and religious differences. Iraq Peace and Prosperity in 2006? 02 January 2006    Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached Regardless of the outcome, we must have the courage and integrity to admit that our founders' wise counsel against foreign entanglements was correct. Once the rationale for the war shifted from weapons of mass destruction to installing democracy, our credibility became dependent on true Iraqi sovereignty-- even if the government that emerges is not to our liking. True sovereignty for Iraq cannot be realized unless and until we end our occupation and stop trying to engineer political outcomes. Iraq Peace and Prosperity in 2006? 02 January 2006    Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 8 ... Cached Dangerous foreign aid spending also grows next year, sending more of your tax dollars overseas to fund dubious regimes that often later become our enemies- as we've seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress cannot continue to increase spending each year and expect tax revenues to keep pace. No reasonable person can argue that a $2.4 trillion budget does not contain huge amounts of special interest spending that can and should be cut by Congress, especially when we are waging an off-budget war in Iraq that costs more than $1 billion every week. Iraq The Ever-Growing Federal Budget 13 February 2006    Texas Straight Talk 13 February 2006 verse 8 ... Cached · The projected deficit for 2006 is $423 billion, $100 billion more than 2005. The real 2006 deficit, including the $5 billion per week we spend in Iraq, will be much, much higher. Iraq The Ever-Growing Federal Budget 13 February 2006    Texas Straight Talk 13 February 2006 verse 9 ... Cached · The administration will ask for at least $120 billion in so-called "off budget" funds for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year, perpetuating the deception that war spending somehow doesn't count toward the budget deficit. Iraq The Port Security Controversy 27 February 2006    Texas Straight Talk 27 February 2006 verse 7 ... Cached It's important to note the administration did not bother to consult with Congress or the state governors involved. The Treasury department approved the purchase with no congressional oversight whatsoever. While many applaud unchecked presidential authority when it comes to war in Iraq, wiretapping, and other national security matters, they now demand that Congress overturn a unilateral administration decision. The lesson learned is that everybody likes presidential power when they agree with how it’s used. When they don’t, they rediscover that the Constitution authorizes Congress to make policy after all. Iraq Policy is More Important than Personnel 24 April 2006    Texas Straight Talk 24 April 2006 verse 3 ... Cached President Bush has been under pressure to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom many view as the architect of a failed approach in Iraq. Even many ardent war hawks are unhappy with the Secretary for not having more troops on the ground in Iraq, and for conducting the war less aggressively than they would like. Iraq Policy is More Important than Personnel 24 April 2006    Texas Straight Talk 24 April 2006 verse 5 ... Cached I happen to agree with Mr. Rumsfeld on the matter of downsizing the military as a whole and remaking it to reflect modern realities of warfare. A swifter, nimbler military would be better suited to tracking individuals like bin Laden who do not operate under the flag of any particular nation or army. The war in Iraq shows that we’re trying to adapt our military to fit our foreign policy, rather than the other way around. For all our high-tech advantages, we are mired in a simmering urban civil war that does not play to the true strengths of our troops. Iraq Policy is More Important than Personnel 24 April 2006    Texas Straight Talk 24 April 2006 verse 6 ... Cached The old model of warfare, based on invading and occupying whole nations, is unsustainable. Both financially and in terms of manpower, American simply cannot afford any more Koreas, Vietnams, or Iraqs. Many people in the Pentagon understand that America’s armed forces are not trained in occupation, policing, and nation building. The best way to support the troops is through a sensible foreign policy that does not place them in harm’s way unnecessarily or force them into uncomfortable, dangerous roles as occupiers. Iraq Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices 08 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2006 verse 6 ... Cached Most people understand that federal restrictions on exploring, drilling, and refining domestic oil have made us dependent on various questionable Middle East governments. We should expand this into a greater understanding of how American foreign policy increases gas prices here at home. Before the war in Iraq, oil was about $28 per barrel. Today it is over $70. Iraq was a significant source of worldwide oil, but its production has dropped 50% since 2002. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Furthermore, the general instability in the Middle East created by the war causes oil prices to rise everywhere. Iraq Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices 08 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2006 verse 7 ... Cached The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Soaring gasoline prices are one giant unintended consequence of the war, pure and simple. Iraq Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices 08 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2006 verse 8 ... Cached Even so, many war hawks are seriously agitating for an attack on Iran—another major supplier of worldwide oil. They are not concerned one bit about the impact such an attack would have on the wallets of average Americans; their obsession with regime change in Iran trumps all common sense. But let me be clear: An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon. Iraq Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 3 ... Cached In recent weeks the Bush administration has stated its willingness to use diplomacy in dealing with Iran, which is a welcome change from previous policy. Let’s hope it’s more than just a change in tone. With ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan costing more than $5 billion per week, record levels of federal spending and debt, and oil hovering around $70 per barrel, American taxpayers certainly cannot afford another war. Iraq Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 4 ... Cached Iran, like Iraq, is a major source of global oil. For all our posturing, the truth is that worldwide crude prices would spike rapidly if we attacked Iran. With summer coming, demand will increase and gas prices at the pump will be over $3 for most of the nation. Airlines are raising ticket prices to compensate for jet fuel prices that have nearly doubled in a year. A strike on Iran in coming months would create serious trouble for an American economy that is already struggling with high energy prices. Iraq Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 7 ... Cached Is Iran a nuclear threat? Not according to our own CIA, which says Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons. This is not to say we should sit back as nuclear weapons proliferate in the Middle East. But we shouldn’t allow war hawks to wildly overstate the threat posed by Iran, as they did with Iraq. Iraq Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 8 ... Cached Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan-- much to the delight of the Iranians, who consider the Taliban an arch enemy. Warlords now control the country, operating a larger drug trade than ever before. Iraq Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 9 ... Cached Similarly in Iraq, our ouster of Saddam Hussein will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia. Iraq Avoiding War with Iran 22 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 10 ... Cached Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures? Iraq What Congress Can Do About High Gas Prices 31 July 2006    Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2006 verse 5 ... Cached First: We must reassess our foreign policy and announce some changes. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to secure oil. Before the Iraq war oil was less than $30 per barrel; today it is over $70. The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Since 2002 oil production in Iraq has dropped 50%. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Soaring gasoline prices are a giant unintended consequence of our invasion, pure and simple. Iraq What Congress Can Do About High Gas Prices 31 July 2006    Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2006 verse 6 ... Cached Second: We must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is nowhere near getting one. Yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even nuclear means. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach toward Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 per barrel. Iraq Rethinking the Draft 27 November 2006    Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 4 ... Cached Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, soon to be a powerful committee chair, has openly called for reinstating the Selective Service System. Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey claims that our ground forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq are stretched far too thin, and desperately need reinforcements. Meanwhile, other political and military leaders suggest that several hundred thousand additional troops might be needed simply to restore some semblance of order in Iraq. We are nearing the point where a choice will have to be made: either decrease our troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan significantly, or produce thousands of new military recruits quickly. So a discussion of military conscription is not purely academic. Iraq Rethinking the Draft 27 November 2006    Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 7 ... Cached Military needs aside, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the federal government. The political right favors sending young people to fight in aggressive wars like Iraq. The political left longs to send young people into harm's way to save the world in places like Darfur. But both sides share the same belief that citizens should serve the needs of the state-- a belief our founders clearly rejected in the Declaration of Independence. Iraq Who Makes Foreign Policy? 11 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 11 December 2006 verse 3 ... Cached The Iraq Study Group released its report last week, giving the president several recommendations to consider in prosecuting the war. Similarly, the incoming Democratic leaders in Congress promise to urge the President to take a new course in Iraq. Meanwhile, one newly elected member of Congress was asked on national television about the Iraq war. She responded by saying she had no real opinion, and that foreign policy was “up to the president.” Iraq Who Makes Foreign Policy? 11 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 11 December 2006 verse 4 ... Cached In each instance, it is assumed that the president will make Iraq policy. I’m not talking about the details of actual military operations in Iraq; I’m talking about the broader policy questions of how long our troops will stay, how many will stay, and how victory will be defined. Iraq Who Makes Foreign Policy? 11 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 11 December 2006 verse 12 ... Cached It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate. Iraq The Original Foreign Policy 18 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2006 verse 13 ... Cached It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image. Iraq More of the Same in 2007 25 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 3 ... Cached Today we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. In Iraq, however, war rages on with no end in sight. Iraq More of the Same in 2007 25 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 4 ... Cached The midterm congressional elections are over, and the Iraq Study Group report is complete. Many Americans are unhappy about the war and want a change in policy. But what we are going to get from both parties in Washington is more of the same-- much more-- when it comes to Iraq. Iraq More of the Same in 2007 25 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 5 ... Cached President Bush not only wants to stay the course, he wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq. The “new approach” is simply escalation, with no timetable and still no definition of victory. Iraq More of the Same in 2007 25 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 6 ... Cached In fact, the president promised last week that, “They can’t run us out of the Middle East,” and that we will not retreat from Iraq. Worse, he asserted that America will, “Stay in the fight for a long period of time.” According to the President, we must increase the size of our Army and Marine Corps to provide the bodies to make this possible. Iraq More of the Same in 2007 25 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 7 ... Cached In other words, our troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Remember, we are building several huge, permanent military bases there, along with the biggest embassy in the world to serve as the command post for our occupation. The embassy compound alone will cost more than one billion dollars. Iraq More of the Same in 2007 25 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 8 ... Cached This doesn’t sound like the “new generation” warfare envisioned by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but more like old-fashioned occupation-- which requires hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Once again, more of the same. Iraq More of the Same in 2007 25 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 11 ... Cached Anyone who voted for Democrats last month expecting a change in our Iraq policy was sorely mistaken. Incoming congressional leaders have publicly stated their support for increasing troop levels, and Democrats have no intention of pursuing any serious withdrawal plan in Congress. They will not withhold war funding. The war will plod on, and Democrats will call for more of the same. Iraq More of the Same in 2007 25 December 2006    Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 12 ... Cached In Washington, the answer to every problem is always more of the same. If a war is not successful, escalate it-- or even start another one. This is our only policy in Iraq, where we don’t even know whom the enemy really is. Can one in ten Americans even distinguish between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds? Unless we rethink our senseless policy of endless occupation, regime change, and nation building in the Middle East, we must expect more of the same: More troops injured or killed, more spending, more debt, more taxes, more militarism, and especially more government. Iraq Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 3 ... Cached While the president’s announcement that an additional 20,000 troops would be sent to Iraq dominated the headlines last week, the real story was the president’s sharp rhetoric towards Iran and Syria. And recent moves by the administration only serve to confirm the likelihood of a wider conflict in the Middle East. Iraq Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 4 ... Cached The president stated last week that, “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity- and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.” He also announced the deployment of an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, and the deployment of Patriot air missile defense systems to countries in the Middle East. Meanwhile, US troops stormed the Iranian consulate in Iraq and detained several Iranian diplomats. Taken together, the message was clear: the administration intends to move the US closer to a dangerous and ill-advised conflict with Iran. Iraq Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 6 ... Cached This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don’t seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. House Democrats strongly criticized the Iraq troop surge after the president’s announcement, but then praised the president’s confrontational words condemning Iran. Many of those opposing a troop surge are not calling for a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East, but rather for “redeployment.” Redeployment to where? Iran? Iraq Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 7 ... Cached We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq. Iraq Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 8 ... Cached The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran. Iraq Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 9 ... Cached The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states: Iraq Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 10 ... Cached "… the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results." Iraq Escalation in the Middle East 15 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2007 verse 11 ... Cached In coming weeks I plan to introduce legislation that urges the administration to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Dialogue and discussion should replace inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation in our Middle East policy, if we truly seek to defeat violent extremism and terrorism. Iraq Inflation and War Finance 29 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2007 verse 3 ... Cached The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion. Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq. This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit projections. Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called “supplemental” spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget. Iraq Inflation and War Finance 29 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2007 verse 5 ... Cached As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it’s important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted. Iraq Inflation and War Finance 29 January 2007    Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2007 verse 10 ... Cached The $500 billion we’ve officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid budgets. As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it’s really worth it. Congress should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people can judge for themselves. Iraq Another Spending Bill for the War in Iraq 12 February 2007    Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2007 verse 1 ... Cached Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq Iraq Another Spending Bill for the War in Iraq 12 February 2007    Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2007 verse 3 ... Cached Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve already spent more than $500 billion in Iraq, mostly through supplemental spending bills that are not part of the normal appropriations and budget process. But with costs soaring and no end to the war in sight, yet another supplemental spending bill must be passed soon—and both parties in Congress are only too willing to provide the money under the guise of supporting the troops. Iraq Another Spending Bill for the War in Iraq 12 February 2007    Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2007 verse 5 ... Cached Defense Department officials will ask Congress for the next supplemental bill in coming weeks. The amount requested is likely to be at least $140 billion. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2007--and the administration has made it clear that we will-- the bill to American taxpayers easily could top one trillion dollars in another year or two. Iraq Another Spending Bill for the War in Iraq 12 February 2007    Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2007 verse 6 ... Cached I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars. Even those who do must face the reality that the federal government simply doesn’t have the money. Congress continues to spend more than the Treasury raises in taxes year after year, by borrowing money abroad or simply printing it. Paying for war with credit is reckless and stupid, but paying for war by depreciating our currency is criminal. Iraq Another Spending Bill for the War in Iraq 12 February 2007    Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2007 verse 7 ... Cached Even the most modest suggestions for controlling spending in Iraq have been rejected. Some in Congress argued that reconstruction money should be paid back when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Another idea was to find dollar-for-dollar offsets in the rest of the federal budget for every dollar spent in Iraq. But the administration adamantly opposed both ideas. Budget cuts are unpopular, and the profits from Iraqi oil will never compensate American taxpayers. Iraq Another Spending Bill for the War in Iraq 12 February 2007    Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2007 verse 9 ... Cached We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down-- all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will pay to provide job training for Iraqis; we will pay to secure Iraq’s borders; we will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq. In doing so, we will saddle future generations of Americans with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one Congress should answer now-- by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills. Iraq Hypocrisy in the Middle East 26 February 2007    Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2007 verse 3 ... Cached Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East. Iraq Hypocrisy in the Middle East 26 February 2007    Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2007 verse 4 ... Cached Consider Saudi Arabia, the native home of most of the September 11th hijackers. The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on terror.” Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil. So successive administrations continue to treat the Saudis as something they are not: a reliable and honest friend in the Middle East. Iraq More Funding for the War in Iraq 26 March 2007    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2007 verse 1 ... Cached More Funding for the War in Iraq Iraq More Funding for the War in Iraq 26 March 2007    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2007 verse 7 ... Cached While I have been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning and do believe that there is a strong constitutional role for Congress when it comes to war, I could not support what appeared to be micro-management of the war in this bill. There is a distinction between the legitimate oversight role of Congress and attempts to meddle in the details of how the war is to be fought. The withdrawal and readiness benchmarks in this bill are in my view inappropriate. That is why the president has threatened to veto this bill. Iraq More Funding for the War in Iraq 26 March 2007    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2007 verse 8 ... Cached In the last Congress I co-sponsored legislation urging the president to come up with a plan to conclude our military activity in Iraq, but that legislation contained no date-specific deadlines to complete withdrawal. Iraq More Funding for the War in Iraq 26 March 2007    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2007 verse 9 ... Cached Once again Congress wants to have it both ways. Back in 2002, Congress passed the authorization for the president to attack Iraq if and when he saw fit. By ignoring the Constitution, which clearly requires a declaration of war, Congress could wash its hands of responsibility after the war began going badly by citing the ambiguity of its authorization. This time, House leaders want to appear to be opposing the war by including problematic benchmarks, but they include language to allow the president to waive these if he sees fit. Iraq The 2008 Federal Budget 02 April 2007    Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2007 verse 6 ... Cached For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans. Iraq Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again 30 April 2007    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2007 verse 1 ... Cached Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again Iraq Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again 30 April 2007    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2007 verse 3 ... Cached This week, Congress finalized the controversial $124 billion Iraq emergency supplemental spending bill, with the House and Senate both voting in favor of final passage. The majority of my Republican colleagues and I voted against this measure, and the president has vowed to veto the legislation. Iraq Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again 30 April 2007    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2007 verse 6 ... Cached If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting against funding for that war makes equally good sense. What occurred, however, was the worst of both. Democrats, dissatisfied with the way the war is being fought, gave the president all the money he asked for and more to keep fighting it, while demanding that he fight it in the manner they see fit. That is definitely not a recipe for success in Iraq and foreign policy in general. Iraq Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again 30 April 2007    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2007 verse 7 ... Cached What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible. Iraq Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again 30 April 2007    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2007 verse 8 ... Cached Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the willing participation of Congress, through measures like this war funding bill, that our policy continues to veer off course. Additionally, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true. Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 1 ... Cached Fixing What’s Wrong With Iraq Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 3 ... Cached Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war. Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 4 ... Cached More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq . Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 5 ... Cached According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 6 ... Cached “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 7 ... Cached (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ” Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 8 ... Cached I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States . Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 9 ... Cached As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization. Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 10 ... Cached With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq ? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization? Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 11 ... Cached This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq . Iraq Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq 21 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 12 ... Cached Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later. Iraq Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty 25 May 2007    Texas Straight Talk 25 May 2007 verse 10 ... Cached Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona , New Mexico , and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan ! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists. Iraq The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq 04 June 2007    Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2007 verse 1 ... Cached The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq Iraq The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq 04 June 2007    Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2007 verse 4 ... Cached The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam dunk operation; that we would be welcomed as liberators, and oil revenues would pay for the operation with minimal loss of American lives. Iraq The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq 04 June 2007    Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2007 verse 5 ... Cached All of this hyperbole came while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead. The chaos that this preemptive, undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the Al Qaida to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served. Iraq The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq 04 June 2007    Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2007 verse 9 ... Cached This wait and see attitude in Washington, and the promised reassessment of events in Iraq later on, strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans in order to influence the decision coming in three months. In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait and see attitude in Iraq, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving, the perfect time for the Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each other and on our troops and just possibly begin talking with each other. Iraq The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq 04 June 2007    Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2007 verse 10 ... Cached Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq , yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse when we leave. They refuse to admit that the condition of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruitment device for Al Qaida. Iraq Amnesty Opponents Are Not Un-American 11 June 2007    Texas Straight Talk 11 June 2007 verse 5 ... Cached To make matters worse, as I wrote in a recent column, some 120 of our best trained border guards are going to be sent to Iraq to help them with border enforcement! In addition, National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start on the Mexican border are scheduled to also be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan . Iraq Globalism 16 July 2007    Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2007 verse 3 ... Cached The recent defeat of the amnesty bill in the Senate came after outraged Americans made it clear to the political elite that they would not tolerate this legislation, which would further erode our national sovereignty. Similarly, polls increasingly show the unpopularity of the Iraq war, as well as of the Congress that seems incapable of ending it. Iraq Exposing the True Isolationists 23 July 2007    Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2007 verse 5 ... Cached In terms of modern politics, isolationism is not so much an approach to American foreign policy as it is the result of the policies enacted by proponents of globalism. From offensive statements about “Old Europe” (as differentiated from “New Europe”), necessitated by the desire to justify a military presence in Iraq, to conflicts at the WTO, the flowery rhetoric of the neo-conservatives often takes vicious turns when unrealistic policies meet with reality. Iraq Exposing the True Isolationists 23 July 2007    Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2007 verse 7 ... Cached America is now held in low esteem in many nations, not because we follow our own interests, but because the elites make claims that are not reflected in reality. They have, for example, undertaken economic sanctions in an entirely new way in recent years. When they wanted to take aim at Iraq and Iran, they imposed sanctions against those countries, but also against countries doing business with those countries. This meant we were in no position to negotiate with our adversaries, and we also could not rely on support from our allies. Iraq Exposing the True Isolationists 23 July 2007    Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2007 verse 8 ... Cached Yet this globalism often bumps into itself, because of our second party sanctions against Iran, our international commitments to the space station, for example, were put into jeopardy. Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal. Iraq The Fear Factor 30 July 2007    Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2007 verse 6 ... Cached As Washington moves towards its summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm. Iraq The Fear Factor 30 July 2007    Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2007 verse 7 ... Cached It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use. Iraq As Recess Begins, Spending Spree Continues 06 August 2007    Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2007 verse 6 ... Cached While both sides continue attempting to score political points, the country goes further and further into debt, because neither side is really willing to make the tough decisions necessary to halt the run away train of federal spending. Several Republicans go to the House floor with amendments to stop spending directed by Congress, often seeking to cut projects that total $100,000 or less. While it is true that hundreds of thousands can and do add up, the same people who argue for these spending cuts think nothing of spending billions more in Iraq. At the same time, basically every spending bill that comes to the House Floor would have the majority spend more, even over and above the increases requested by the Administration. Iraq Surrender Should Not be an Option 02 September 2007    Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 2 ... Cached Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage. Iraq Surrender Should Not be an Option 02 September 2007    Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 3 ... Cached In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat. Iraq Surrender Should Not be an Option 02 September 2007    Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 4 ... Cached They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can't be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point. Iraq Surrender Should Not be an Option 02 September 2007    Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 6 ... Cached The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us? Iraq The Money Has to Come From Somewhere 23 September 2007    Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2007 verse 4 ... Cached In a very real sense, the Fed and the government are close to going over the spending limit of our nation’s credit card. We rely on foreign investors to buy our debt so our government can maintain its appetite for spending. Yet the market for US Treasury Bonds is rapidly shrinking as yield declines. Still the government will need an estimated $100 billion more for every year we “stay the course” in Iraq , not to mention what a possible conflict in Iran could cost. Iraq Keeping Promises to Seniors 07 October 2007    Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2007 verse 2 ... Cached With our country's finances stretched thin, our credit limit fast approaching, and our currency inflated to the breaking point, there is no indication yet of any urgency on the part of Congress to rein in spending. The predictable answer to the government's voracious spending habits is this week’s proposal by some Democratic Congressional leaders for tax increases to pay for operations in Iraq . Here at home, however, there are promises our seniors heavily rely upon. We must keep these promises. Iraq Interventionism? Isolationism? Actually, Both. 21 October 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 October 2007 verse 6 ... Cached Even though I am no fan of the war in Iraq , keeping positive relations with Turkey is important to protecting our troops who have been sent to fight this war. We are likely to need cordial relations with Turkey so that we can get our troops out of Iraq as quickly and safely as possible, when the time comes. Iraq The True Cost of Taxing and Spending 18 November 2007    Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2007 verse 3 ... Cached Now, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have released a report on the total costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan , including "hidden costs" such as interest on the money we're borrowing, and long term healthcare for vets. The bill comes to $3.5 trillion. Republicans are, of course, questioning the math on this item. Iraq The True Cost of Taxing and Spending 18 November 2007    Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2007 verse 7 ... Cached But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq , where the best news in a long time is they aren't killing our men and women as fast as they were last month. Iraq The True Cost of Taxing and Spending 18 November 2007    Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2007 verse 8 ... Cached The Heritage Foundation estimates a $3.5 trillion tax increase would be responsible for 2,200 lost jobs in my district alone, over 70,000 lost jobs across Texas . That's 70,000 Texans in unemployment lines, without health insurance for their families. Some Democrats may not want to spend $3.5 trillion on Iraq , but they do want to raise it in new taxes. And, by digging our economy into a deeper hole, they would create a lot more demand for the social programs they propose. Iraq The True Cost of Taxing and Spending 18 November 2007    Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2007 verse 10 ... Cached Congress should not increase taxes by $3.5 trillion and the administration needs to end the occupation of Iraq with its costs of $3.5 trillion to taxpayers. Let the hardworking American taxpayers keep their money. Families need that $46,000 far more than government does. Iraq On Illegal Immigration and Border Security 02 December 2007    Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2007 verse 6 ... Cached I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs. Iraq Bombed if you do... 09 December 2007    Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2007 verse 3 ... Cached Indeed nothing has changed from the administration's perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage. Iraq Bombed if you do... 09 December 2007    Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2007 verse 6 ... Cached Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country's economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity. Iraq Legislative Forecast for 2008 13 January 2008    Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2008 verse 3 ... Cached First and foremost, we will see ramped up spending for the warfare/welfare state. There is no resolution or end in sight on the Iraq occupation. While the American people try repeatedly to communicate to Washington that enough is enough, there still remains little political will in Washington to bring the troops home. The war will continue to require mountains of taxpayer and newly printed dollars, and our economy will sink under the burden. If we are manipulated into a second war, the effects on our economy will be truly devastating. Welfare and entitlement programs will also be ramped up as the economy flounders and budgets in American households are strained. Iraq Making a Recession Great 16 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 16 March 2008 verse 3 ... Cached The problem is, policing the world is expensive, and if elected officials insist upon continuing to fund our current foreign policy, the money has to come from somewhere. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us over $1 trillion. The Democrats' budget gives the President all the funding he needs for his foreign policy, so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war. While Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much in the long run. Iraq Making a Recession Great 16 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 16 March 2008 verse 5 ... Cached The bottom line is that Washington has a serious spending addiction. While both parties debate how to raise the revenue, both parties seem happy to spend over $3 trillion of your money in various ways. While some in Washington criticize the war in Iraq, very few are criticizing the interventionist mindset that got us into the war in the first place. Many so-called "Iraq War critics," criticize this administration rather than truly opposing the decades old policies that led to war. They claim they will eventually get the troops out of Iraq, but the danger is that they simply plan to move them around to other countries, not bring them home. The American people want peace. Minding our own business is the best way to achieve it. Not only is it also a whole lot cheaper, but free trade and friendship with other countries benefits all involved. Iraq On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 1 ... Cached On Five Years in Iraq Iraq On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 2 ... Cached Five years ago last week, the US military's "shock and awe" campaign lit up the Baghdad sky. Five years later, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and nearly four thousand Americans dead, we should pause and reflect on just what has been gained and what has been lost. Iraq On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 3 ... Cached From the beginning, the march to war was paved with false assumptions and lies. Senior administration officials claimed repeatedly that Iraq was somehow responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. They claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They manipulated the fear of the American people after 9/11 to further a war agenda that they had been planning years before that attack. The mainstream media was complicit in this war propaganda. Iraq On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 4 ... Cached Nearly ten years ago, long before 9/11, I requested the time in opposition to the fateful Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, where I then stated on the Floor of the House of Representatives, "I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation." Less than five years later we were invading Iraq . Iraq On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 5 ... Cached Five years into the invasion and occupation of Iraq , untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead; some two million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees; and the Iraqi Christian community – one of the oldest in the world – has been decimated more completely than even under the Ottoman occupation or the rule of Saddam Hussein. Iraq On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 6 ... Cached On the US side, nearly four thousand Americans have lost their lives fighting in Iraq and many thousands more are horribly wounded. Our own senior military officers warn that our military is nearly broken by the strain of the Iraq occupation. The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed by the volume of disability claims from Iraq war veterans. Iraq On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 7 ... Cached A study by Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz concludes that the cost of the war in Iraq could be at least $3 trillion. The economic consequences of our enormous expenditure in Iraq are beginning to make themselves known as we fall into recession and possibly worse. Iraq On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 8 ... Cached Iraq war supporters claim that the "surge" of additional US troops into Iraq has been a resounding success. I am not so confident. Under the "surge" policy the United States military has trained and equipped with deadly weapons those Iraqi militia members against whom they were fighting just months ago. I fear by arming and equipping opposing militias we are just setting the stage for a more tragic and dangerous explosion of violence, possibly aimed at US troops in Iraq . There is no indication that the Iraqi government has made any political progress whatsoever. Iraq On Five Years in Iraq 23 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 9 ... Cached The sooner we withdraw the better. The invasion and continued US occupation has strengthened both Iran and Al-Qaeda in the region. Continuing down the road of a failed policy will only cost more money we do not have and more lives that should not be sacrificed. Interventionism has produced one disaster after another. It is time we return to a non-interventionist foreign policy that emphasizes peaceful trade and travel and no entangling alliances. We can begin by withdrawing from Iraq immediately. Iraq The Economy: Another Casualty of War 18 May 2008    Texas Straight Talk 18 May 2008 verse 2 ... Cached This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar "emergency" spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq , and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs. The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package. Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy. At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well. Iraq The Economy: Another Casualty of War 18 May 2008    Texas Straight Talk 18 May 2008 verse 3 ... Cached The continued War in Iraq and the constant state of emergency has allowed Congress to use these so-called "emergency" bills as a vehicle to dramatically increase spending across the board--including spending that does not meet even the most generous definition of emergency. For example, the spending proposals currently being considered by Congress provide $210 million to the Census Bureau and $4 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. $4.6 billion is requested for the closing of military bases, but not any of the more than 700 bases overseas – but bases here at home! Another $387 million would go to various international organizations and $850 million more just in international food aid - all this when food prices are skyrocketing here and American families are having a hard time making ends meet. Because this spending will be part of "emergency" measures, it will not count against debt ceilings, or any spending limits set by Congressional budget resolutions, and does not have to be offset in any way. Iraq The Economy: Another Casualty of War 18 May 2008    Texas Straight Talk 18 May 2008 verse 5 ... Cached The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control. Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy. We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan , but from South Korea , Germany , and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed. Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire. The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies. Iraq Salute to Veterans 25 May 2008    Texas Straight Talk 25 May 2008 verse 5 ... Cached I was pleased with several of the veterans bills passed this past week, but more needs to be done. There are many other bills that should be passed dealing with veterans health care, how we treat disabled vets, and forgiving debts to the United States of fallen soldiers. We need to keep in mind younger generations who will someday face the choice of whether or not to enlist. They are watching to see how well we keep our promises. As it stands, our military is being rapidly depleted and exhausted by the continued, unconstitutional wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan . This problem must be addressed. Iraq Iraq or the Economy? 16 June 2008    Texas Straight Talk 16 June 2008 verse 1 ... Cached Iraq or the Economy? Iraq Iraq or the Economy? 16 June 2008    Texas Straight Talk 16 June 2008 verse 2 ... Cached What is the importance of the war in Iraq relative to other current issues? This is a question I am often asked, especially as Americans continue to become increasingly aware that something is very wrong with the economy. The difficulty with the way the question is often asked relates to the perception that we are somehow able to divide such issues, or to isolate the cost of war into arbitrarily defined areas such as national security or international relations. War is an all-encompassing governmental activity. The impact of war on our ability to defend ourselves from future attack, and upon America ’s standing in the world, is only a mere fraction of the total overall effect that war has on our nation and the policies of its government. Iraq Iraq or the Economy? 16 June 2008    Texas Straight Talk 16 June 2008 verse 4 ... Cached War takes what would otherwise be productive economic capacity and transfers both that capacity, and the wealth it would generate in normal, peaceful, times into far less economically viable activities. It also impacts budget priorities in ways that are detrimental to our nation. I have often pointed to the fact that we are building bridges in Iraq while they are collapsing in the United States . Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance. Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see. Home Page    Contents    Concordance   E-mail list.