posted on May 17, 2007 12:05:03 AM new
We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)
by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, April 17, 2007
All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.
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.
Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.
Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.
Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.
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.
As an Air Force officer serving from 19631968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.
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.
If the justifications for war were wrong;
If the war is going badly;
If we cant afford the costs, both human and economic;
If civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation;
If the reasons for staying are no more credible than the reasons for going;
THEN ..
Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.
More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home.
Buy a copy of Ron Paul's
new book for $20.
April 24, 2007
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
posted on May 17, 2007 08:38:06 AM new
Then he'll have to run and win the nomination of some third party. He'll never get the republican one.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 17, 2007 09:03:03 AM new
""He'll never get the republican one.""
Yes, it's a shame that an old-fashioned typical anti-war Republican won't have a chance....with neocons.
But he might have a chance with Republicans who want their party back...the historically anti-war party.
More and more Republicans are backing away from bushit because of HIS war....
posted on May 17, 2007 09:06:16 AM new
There's a HUGE difference between a man who doesn't agree with THIS war....and one who joins with the 'blame America' for every problem in the world, progressive.
Get real.
edited to add:
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Giuliani to Paul: 'Take back' 9/11 comments
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Why did terrorists attack the U.S. on 9/11?
According to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East."
Restrained, but clearly angry, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani jumped in, calling Paul's statement "extraordinary."
"As someone who lived through the attack of September 11 -- that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq -- I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th," he said.
Giuliani's fiery response prompted applause and the following demand from the former mayor: "I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
===========
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 17, 2007 09:12 AM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on May 17, 2007 09:14 AM ]
posted on May 17, 2007 09:32:25 AM new
FOX News asked you to tell us who you thought won Tuesday night's First-in-the-South Republican Presidential Candidates Primary Debate. With more than 40,000 votes submitted via text message, 29 percent said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made the best showing of all 10 GOP presidential hopefuls who made their cases to the American people at the University of South Carolina's Koger Center for the Arts in Columbia, S.C.
Did You Miss the Live Broadcast? Click Here to Watch the Entire Debate on FOXNews.com.
Texas Rep. RON PAUL, who ignited controversy at the debate with remarks that U.S. policy had invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, came in SECOND with 25 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who strongly admonished Paul for his comments, came in THIRD place with 19 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is the frontrunner in South Carolina polls, came in sixth with 5 percent.
posted on May 17, 2007 10:24:29 AM new
Yep....I watched that last night. lol
Just goes to show how wrong the liberals HERE are when they say Fox News is a 'right winged' TV station ONLY. lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates
5/16/2007, 7:07 p.m. ET
By JIM DAVENPORT
The Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.
Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates' debate Tuesday night,Paul drew attacks from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said.
Anuzis called the comments "off the wall and out of whack."
"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party," Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting.
"Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful."
Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.
Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, said the candidate "is supporting the traditional GOP foreign policy. I think it's a shame when people try to silence the traditional conservative Republican standpoint."
After the debate Tuesday, Paul said he didn't' expect his remarks to end his campaign.
"The last time I got a message out about my position on the war it boosted us up by tens of thousands and I didn't change my position," Paul said. "I think the American people are sick and tired of this war and want it ended."
==================================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 17, 2007 11:05:15 AM new
nope, but i wouldn't expect YOU to 'get it'.
lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 17, 2007 11:31:33 AM new
Linda_K
posted on May 17, 2007 11:18:43 AM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're missing the whole point, zoomin.
If we limit what you say that may offend me....and the same is allowed to happen in reverse....pretty soon we're like communists nations....where all can't speak out at all....unless the gov [PC] police allow it.
posted on May 17, 2007 12:28:54 PM new
" And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party," Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting."
Either you want free speech or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose which free speech should be allowed. Anuzis wants to ban Paul because he does not agree with the party line? How un-American.
posted on May 17, 2007 03:53:12 PM new
You liberals are just confused.
Free speech is not 'blocked' when another SAYS they can't speak FOR the party....when they don't. lol
He is free to say whatever he wants. And they are free to REACT to what he said. His speech has not been banned.
Like I'd expect a gay group to allow a priest to speak at one of their meetings about what a SIN homosexuality is. LOL LOL
Get real.
You're too funny.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Referring to illegals not being able to vote. LOL LOL Saw this today and thought of you. Hopefully this will show you they DO, are and have been voting already. Even though you said they weren't.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 17, 2007 04:32:46 PM new
Thanks for the link, Linda. Although I haven't read this story, have read similar ones. Of course, it is illegal for them to vote and it is obvious that voter registration requirements need to be stepped up. Can't see why anyone would object to that. Don't think it is too much to ask for ID at the polls to insure the fairest election results. If that stops anyone from voting, that is a sorry state of affairs. There were 60 million votes on American Idol last night---but we don't come close to that in our elections. Unbelievable!
posted on May 17, 2007 04:41:56 PM new
If I understood your position, CC, we are in agreement that requiring ID should be required/ mandatory in order to vote at all.
But it is the liberals who work against this - all across America. So illegals continue voting.
We appear to also be in agreement about the sad state of affairs America is in when voters know more about 'idols', care more about them, than the running of our government.
posted on May 17, 2007 05:30:33 PM new
We are in absolute agreement on this. I have to show picture ID to get on to a lousy beach on Long Island! What could possibly be the objection in needing ID to vote? Makes no sense, unless you are not supposed to be voting. If only more people would take as much interest in our government as they do in that waste of oxygen--Paris Hilton--we might have a shot at a future.
posted on May 18, 2007 12:26:52 AM new
I think linduh has forgotten to read her own post (like in that other thread, Planned Parenthood BREAKS the Law and then Sues ) or just , as usual, can't comprehend the meaning.
The REPUBLICANS want to shut him up because:
""Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, said the candidate "is supporting the traditional GOP foreign policy. I think it's a shame when people try to silence the traditional conservative Republican standpoint."
After the debate Tuesday, Paul said he didn't' expect his remarks to end his campaign.
"The last time I got a message out about my position on the war it boosted us up by tens of thousands and I didn't change my position," Paul said. "I think the American people are sick and tired of this war and want it ended."
""
linDUH you can twist it anyway you want...the FACT remains that the REPUBLICANS are trying to shut him up....trying to ban somone from a debate he has every right to attend IS attempting to ban free speech....just because the slimeballs in your party are doing it doesn't make it right.
posted on May 20, 2007 03:42:26 PM newEither you want free speech or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose which free speech should be allowed. Anuzis wants to ban Paul because he does not agree with the party line? How un-American
Once again Linda shows her true self. The queen of double standards. How many times do you need to be pointed out as the hypocrite that you are Linda? Do you have any back bone? Can you stand up for an issue without flip flopping on it?
He is free to say whatever he wants. And they are free to REACT to what he said. His speech has not been banned
Then the Michigan Republicans should allow him to speek. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I guess you are the one that is really confused. Nothing ever changes with you Linda.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
As I said, liberals would never be able to grasp the difference. And ld and mingo, as usual, prove it right here once again
He's a Libertarian - he CAN run with the support of his OWN party ....and his speech was NOT censored, limited or any other garbage either of you are trying to imply.
posted on May 20, 2007 06:17:25 PM new
He's listed as a REPUBLICAN.
I am so sorry you can't read or spell very well linduh so here's the part where they say they WANT to stifle his free speech:
"""The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.
Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates.
Anuzis called the comments "off the wall and out of whack."
"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party," Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting.
""""Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.:"""""
No, linDUH, it's just that you don't mind stifling the free speech of those you don't agree with....it's such a Republican/Fascist thing....
Ya know if you took a reading comprehension class I'm sure you could eventually learn something...maybe?????
posted on May 21, 2007 06:45:56 AM newHe's a Libertarian - he CAN run with the support of his OWN party
Linda doesn't even know what party he is running for. If he was a Libertarian why is running for President under the Republican Party? Why was he involved in the Republican debates? Linda is the confused one.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 21, 2007 06:47:21 AM new
Reviewing the May 15 Republican presidential debate in his column in the May 28 edition of Time, Joe Klein wrote that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) had a "singular moment of weirdness" when he said "that al-Qaeda attacked on Sept. 11 because the U.S. had been messing around in the Middle East, bombing Iraq." Klein made no mention of the 9-11 Commission report's findings -- which Paul has cited in support of his response at the debate -- including that Osama bin Laden's verbal attacks against the United States "found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers."
Some media figures mischaracterized the response by Paul during the debate, asserting that Paul had "blamed" the United States for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as Media Matters for America recently noted. In fact, Paul did not blame the United States but, rather, said the attacks were a response to U.S. actions in the Middle East and stressed the importance of understanding the motivations of those who want to attack the United States. From the debate:
PAUL: Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
[...]
PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- [bell rings] -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
[...]
PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
During a post-debate interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Paul said that "Americans didn't do anything to cause" 9-11 and added that the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia appealed to bin Laden's followers. And on May 16, Paul released a press release stating :
When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, [Rudy] Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.
In his Time column published online on May 17, Klein rated the GOP candidates based on their performance during the May 15 debate. Klein said that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney lost "because he was slick," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani won "because he seemed forceful" and Sen. John McCain (AZ) "was a most honorable presence." After mentioning some of the lower tier candidates, Klein ended with Paul, calling his comments regarding 9-11 "weird":
And then there's the libertarian Congressman Ron Paul who seems like your uncle the bartender who has a Big Theory about everything: some of his ideas are brilliant, others weird. He rates a mention because his singular moment of weirdness--proposing that al-Qaeda attacked on Sept. 11 because the U.S. had been messing around in the Middle East, bombing Iraq--offered Giuliani a historic slam dunk. "That's an extraordinary statement," he jumped in when Paul finished, "... that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11." There was explosive applause from the audience.
Yet Klein did not mention the 9-11 Commission report, to which Paul referred on the May 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room. In Chapter 2, the commission discussed bin Laden's appeal in the Islamic world:
It is the story of eccentric and violent ideas sprouting in the fertile ground of political and social turmoil. It is the story of an organization poised to seize its historical moment. How did Bin Ladin-with his call for the indiscriminate killing of Americans-win thousands of followers and some degree of approval from millions more?
The history, culture, and body of beliefs from which Bin Ladin has shaped and spread his message are largely unknown to many Americans. Seizing on symbols of Islam's past greatness, he promises to restore pride to people who consider themselves the victims of successive foreign masters. He uses cultural and religious allusions to the holy Qur'an and some of its interpreters. He appeals to people disoriented by cyclonic change as they confront modernity and globalization. His rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources-Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.
[...]
Many Americans have wondered, "Why do 'they' hate us?" Some also ask, "What can we do to stop these attacks?"
Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as "your agents." Bin Ladin has stated flatly, "Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you." These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers.
From the May 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): Are you ready to back away from the implication of what you were saying last night? Because certainly when you were given the chance last night, you didn't.
PAUL: No. There's no reason to. I think he's going to have to back away from his statement pretty soon, because I found two very clear quotes in the 9-11 Commission report that says that very thing, that our foreign policy has a very great deal to do with their willingness and desire to commit suicide terrorism. So, I would suggest that he read the 9-11 Commission report.
[...]
PAUL: I blame bad policy. And bad policy can have consequences, unintended. The CIA recognize it. The 9-11 Commission recognize it. So to me, this sounds very logical. I think he needs to back down, and I think he needs to read the report and come back and apologize to me.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
....and his speech was NOT censored, limited or any other garbage either of you are trying to imply.