Here Today... Gone To Hell!

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

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won?t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

I like Ron Paul.  :)  At this point, he's the only Republican I'd vote for.

Let's hope this man is our next president.

Let's hope he survives the election.

http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.words-l/msg/72e1d3d11aa4755b

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01094:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst100206.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm

He is right about one very important issue.  Good for him - so were 132 other members of the House of Representatives.  I hope people learn more about him before extolling him simply because he, like many right-wing individuals, opposes the Iraq War and his chosen party affiliation somehow makes this fact extraordinary.

I like Ron Paul because he's the only candidate that gives a damn about the US constituion and freedom.  Not one single candidate on either side line up with the values and intent of the founding fathers as well as Ron Paul.

His most important parole is to abolish the "Federal" Reserve though.

That's why the Neo Cons have started their massive smear campaign against him.

the guy is also :
- pro immigration border fence
- against minimum wage increase
- against stem cell research
- against Education "No Child Left Behind" program

well i think usually when theres a country that was the size of your own, with just as powerful a military force, its better to try and negotiate then end the world by launching every nuclear bomb at each other.

what an asshole

Ron Paul's an asshole for that statement???? I think he's right on with many of the statements he made back in 2002.

At some point in the Cold War I have a feeling one of our leaders  ( maybe Kennedy or Reagan) would have launched a strike against the Soviet Union if it was deemed that there would not be an equally devastating counterattack on the U.S.

Kennedy? Are you nuts?

Reagan on the other hand certainly would have if he had been allowed to by 'them'.

I think the Cuban Missile Crisis showed Kennedy had the balls to do it if he was ever in a position to do so.

No, this man is against socialism and the use of the government to regulate or be involved in every facet of our lives.  Ron Paul wants to allow the private sector and the states figure out what is best - the way the constitution and foudning fathers intended.

States rights is soooo 1800s

I think people extol him because he's one of the few who seems to have serious principles that he stands by, rather than trying to appeal to a party base.  He voted against something that numerous Democratic candidates voted for, because he had the foresight to see that it was a poor idea and the principle to do what he believed, rather than to cast a reckless "Aye" because it was, at the time, popular.   

So, I agree, we should know his values, but the point is that he has them, sticks by them, and they're not for sale in order for him to be elected (at least to this point...if that changes I'll be very disappointed). 

So do Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich and theyre not getting the attention Ron Paul is.  Its because they dont stand out as iconoclasts because theyre ]the only dissenting voices at a Republican debate. 

Yes, hes principled.  I can give you plenty of examples of principled American politicians, from David Duke to Cynthia McKinney - do they all deserve the praise Ron Paul is getting?

he's not that smart so.
the outcome of that is power concentrated in the hands of a few .... riches.

I don't really understand this constent rejection of governement's involvement in societies. People think that by keeping their governemnts away from their everyday lifes they will be free and "libertarians" or else : WRONG. You kick the governement out of your life, you get McDonalds, Exxon, Microsoft and Viagra ruling your mind before you even know it.


it seems that they guy is just surfing on an internet popularity majorly based on his iraq war opinions ... anyway he's a republican ....

He was also resonsible for the escalation of the conflict in Vietnam, but backed down from his promised airsupport for the counter revolutionary elements in Cuba.

Are you fuckin' kidding me? Kennedy was manipulated into those things by DC elements who took advantage of his lack of experience. When he called them out and started planning a withdrawal, the abolishment of The Fed and firing alot of old timers they had him ruthlessly killed. When his brother attempted the same they took him out too.

Since that there hasn't been a single candidate willing to attempt change. They got the message.

And that's the primary lesson to be learned here.

He was an intelligent, educated man that made his own decisions. A "cult of personality" has grown around his image that forgives his flaws to readily.

He was flawed alright in that he underestimated the true cunning of the corporate vultures acting as his advisers and 'friends'.

The only attention I can give is my own.  I think if you look at my comments regarding some of the early Dem debates, you'll see my praise for Kucinich as being the most or one of the most principled politicians running.  But the media decide pretty early who is and is not in that "first tier" of candidates, and others have to fight, tooth and nail, to get the recognition they deserve.  If the Democratic first tier were based on qualifications, it would consist of Biden, Richardson, & Dodd, rather than Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. 

The general point, however, is that there are a number of distinct visions of how a democratic country should be run, from libertarianism to socialism, and conservatism to liberalism.  He's generally a libertarian, with some relevant conservative streaks, and he stands by that vision.  As you are accusing GOP (and Dem) candidates of selling out their values (or not truly having any) in order to be elected, I'd think you'd find his principled nature refreshing, even if you disagree with his politics. 

GOP storm troopers turn Ron Paul voters away at Texas Straw Poll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDnWT4gCJSE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Elewrockwell%2Ecom%2Fblog%2Flewrw%2Farchives%2F015019%2Ehtml)

Added: 13 hours ago
From: fairtaxPresident2008

Provided By:
fairtaxPresident2008

The vote was supposed to be until 1 PM.

The vote was supposed to be until 1 or 2 pm, but GOP security prevented registered Delegates from entering the building who were wearing Ron Paul signs at 10am.

I was standing over by the Granny warriors when 2 delegates approached me and asked me to help them get into the convention center.
They had showed up at the door a little before 10am wearing Ron Paul shirts. The security guard told them to change into proper attire. They left and changed then came back and it was now 10:10/10:20 and the security told them the registration was closed.

Apparently everyone who showed up from out of town or with an online registration recpt. was denied access unless they got there before 10am and in proper attire.

Delegates who showed up, got their credentials and then changed were allowed to enter.

In the video the woman in red asks a Ron Paul organizer for her pass. He tells her the woman with the box has it. She runs to the woman with the box of passes, and askes if she has the passes, and the woman tells her no. So what was in that box, and why was she in such a hurry to get the box out of the convention center? It was in my opinon a lie and the passes were in the box.

The security guard is asked by me on camera who he works for, and he evades the question. If he works for the GOP then why not say "yes GOP" he says "the party" Who's party? Another candidate? Who told this security guard to deny access to Ron Paul delegates?

We counted about 12 or so people walking up to the door and being turned away every 10 min or so. This went on from 10am till 1:30 when I left. This does not count the delegates who showed up in Ron Paul shirts and could not or decided not to change and simply went home frustrated and out the $50 or $75 fee the GOP charges.

If they paid for credentials and were denied them, should they file a dispute on their credit card? Would hundreds of disputes on the GOP merchant account make national headlines, and force the merchant account provider to suspend or even file criminal charges against the account holder?


A few notes:

Ron Paul broke the Texas one night fund raising record, raising $102,000 in funds, and not at some dog and pony show big-name fundraiser at a fancy hotel, this happened at a private residence in Dallas where a wealthy sponsor opened her home to hundreds of RP supporters.

Sure, its refreshing, but its not worth the praise hes received and I dont respect his actual positions on most issues any more than Tom Tancredos or Sam Brownbacks.  I maintain that hes only earned that praise by choosing to belong to a party that is alienating more and more voters with their position on Iraq.  By standing alongside nine other candidates who support George W. Bushs Iraq agenda, he appears to be the common sense candidate by default.  Thats what I believe has driven his popularity more than anything.  If it was simply steadfast conviction, Tom Tancredo would be just as popular.

 

It's a more difficult task to identify principle when it lines up with what is popular or, in this case, with what these candidates believe their primary voters want to hear.  So, yes, Paul certainly receives praise because he stands out, because it takes courage to go against your party and against your President.  Had the Dems, as a whole, had the guts that he does, then the war vote would have been a good deal closer, and perhaps the public would have been inclined to take a much closer look. 

But personally, I'd like to see him get as much praise as possible!  If, somehow, he pulled it off, then at least we'd have two anti-war candidates running!