-
Your ad here.
Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.
31 Responses to “Ron Paul on the Iraq War”
|
Your ad here.
|
Great video – thanks for posting it, John.
BTW, Chris Dodd needs to fire his make-up artist; didn’t appear like he had a white mustache?! Not very presidential!
Eric
LOL
Maher is right, he’s more like RuPaul.
Try this short video of Paul on Maher’s show. Paul is a kook, a kook who’s right about Iraq, but a kook.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJzfS8ZhRSg&mode=related&search=
The problem with Ron Paul is that he tells the truth but, isn’t a “TV personality” in that he doesn’t project the “image” most have of a President.
He also doesn’t put some of the truth out in a way that people feel convinced it is the truth. That isn’t so much Ron Paul’s fault as it is our own for not knowing what he is basing his statements on.
He has been in government and seen the policies put in place and the cause/effect of them over the years. We often have no idea of what our government has been doing with covert operations, or back room deals with other governments or the 1971 agreement to protect OPEC nations that sold oil in dollars or why we gave weapons to al-Qaeda decades ago and allowed them to rise to power.
So, often he sounds like a kook uttering “conspiracy theories” but, being on the inside, he actually saw the foundations of those “conspiracies.” We don’t.
Is he the answer? I don’t think so. Not that he might not be better as a candidate, but, as President, both the Democrats and Republicans in Congress would try to make him look like a bad President.
We have to change Congress if we want the nation turned around from the “unsustainable” course it is on. No President, either party or even 3rd party, is going to do much that Congress doesn’t approve of because most things first require Congress pass legislation before the President can sign it.
Jan Paul,
Seems to me the problem lies with the entrenched bureaucracy that never changes no matter what party assumes the mantle of majority. If a presidential candidate wants to stand out on either side, he (I leave out she because we know who she is and she would never support such an idea) should call for the immediate firing of all lifer bureaucrats within the first week of taking office.
Only then will you see real change in the system.
Many have called for term limits but, that takes a Constitutional Amendment like it did for President. Can you see Congress passing that Amendment? It would require the people in the states to do it and I doubt they will do it.
The other thing is that we have people in the parties that are not elected officials but are advisers to our politicians that have their own agenda. We rely on people like Rove or some “expert” in foreign policy or economic policy, etc. that seems to give good advice but, there is a hidden agenda that isn’t revealed until later.
Could that be what we see in NAFTA? Who actually wrote the terms in that agreement? Was it the sponsors of the bill or “experts” who told the Congressmen “it is good.” As a result we have Congressmen saying “we don’t support a union” but it moves forward. They say “Congress would have to pass legislation to allow a merger,” yet, it is happening without them because it was already authorized in NAFA.
quote:
KANSAS CITY – Dec. 7, 2005 – Missouri Governor Matt Blunt and key economic leadership from Missouri, Kansas City SmartPort and Kansas City Southern traveled to Mexico this week to meet with Mexican President, Vicente Fox, as well as other key leadership in the country, to express their commitment to the Mexican Customs facility to be located in Kansas City. The facility would be the first of its kind on U.S. soil.
“My top priority is to create new jobs and investment in Missouri,” said Blunt. “Tapping into the global economy and solidifying our already strong trade relationship with Mexico are keys in achieving greater economic success for our state.”
The Mexican Customs facility, to be managed by KC SmartPort and located in the Central Business District in downtown Kansas City, would allow U.S companies shipping freight southbound to Mexico to clear goods in Kansas City, jump on to the NAFTA corridor and stroll through Mexico avoiding the delays and congestion at the border.
http://www.kcsmartport.com/sec_press/releases/GovernorsMission.htm
===========================
How many in Congress even know we are planning a Mexican Customs port in the middle of the U.S.? They probably think they would have to pass new legislation to authorize it.
So, you are 100% correct that the entrenched bureaucracy is the problem because even Congress has no idea of what is going on half the time. That is why our founders wanted a very limited federal government.
It wasn’t because they thought the state governments would be better. They just feared the power and ineptness of a central government that would develop the very bureaucracy you point to.
The problem with a President that is willing to do that is they would never get the party support to be elected in the first place. Political parties have become power blocks themselves and they don’t want people running in their party who thwart that power they have accumulated. They would rather endorse and support a “Spector” than risk somebody new that might upset the apple cart.
Some say a President can’t win who hasn’t been approved of by some of the international power brokers that have ties to the political parties. Do you think that is possible? Do you think things like Gov. Perry who is fighting for the NAFTA highways being inviteded to the Bilderberg meeting means anything? Or, is it just a group of people who happen to have a lot of power, wanting to get some new perspectives? Could he be being prepared for a future run for President? Is it even important?
Who really runs Washington? Is it our elected officials or people behind the scenes they get advice from?
If only Ron Paul understood the threat to America, he would move rapidly up in GOP polls.
Following his blame America first statement in the first debate, Paul proclaimed tonight that Iran is not a threat to this country. He chastised other candidates for stating the obvious; that Iran cannot be allowed to build nuclear weapons.
Sorry all you RP supporters…the guy just doesn’t get it. I previously thought he would be a factor as a 3rd party candidate…I was wrong. He needs to withdraw before voters in his district realize just how dangerous he is to American soverignty.
Why do you think Iran is a threat to the U.S.? I agree it is a threat to Israel and the stability of the Middle East.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on national security regarding the Middle East because we can’t take back what has transpired and that we may have to attack Iran for several reasons but not that it is a threat to us as a military object only as an economic objective.
Iran appears to be leading other nations to abandon the dollar and thus can hurt us “legally” by just moving out of the dollar. He doesn’t need to risk an attack on the U.S. other than through the dollar.
But, he is a threat to others in the Middle East. Saudi-Arabia besides Israel could be a target of his. We already know he wants Iraqs oil so he can sell that in euros too.
But, as a direct threat with a nuclear device, I doubt that will happen. Also, I think that any direct attack on the U.S. or an ally, regardless of Paul’s current views would be overridden and he would act responsibly. Why doesn’t somebody flat out ask him what he would do if Iran attacked Israel or Saudi Arabia?
Then we would know for sure what his stance is regarding Iran. The questions they ask deal with current policy and the bad decisions we have made for decades that got us where we are. Just make him spell out his foreign policy when an attack is made on us or an ally.
I think most might not like it but how do we know until he is actually asked?
The other problem we face is that we can’t afford much more involvement. Countries are leaving the dollar with more frequency now. The bond rates are rising as fewer nations are buying our bonds in the quantities they were. More and more nations are seeking other assets to put their dollars in than bonds.
That means we are running out of lenders to fund more borrowing for defense spending. What will the average American voter do when the government cuts other spending to wage another war with Iran? Not whether it will be the right thing or not but just what will most voters do?
We are already seeing more support for Ron Paul by GOP members than would have been expected and it isn’t that they are so against defending America as they are tired of fighting wars they don’t believe are waged properly. They have lost faith in America’s war policies and don’t want us going to war against Iran with this current administration in control of the military.
Ron Paul won’t be the candidate for the GOP and so rather than attack him and give him even more attention in the media, we should be looking at why he does have the support among Republicans he does have.
With the GOP down to 25% or 35% with leaners, we can’t afford to not listen to the people voters are listening to. Even if it is only to find out what the GOP is doing that is driving so many voters away, they should be listening and developing a plan to win those voters back.
Instead, they drive them away in even larger numbers. Being right isn’t all it takes to win elections. You have to be able to convince voters you are right. The GOP is failing miserably at that.
He has held these views for years and his voters keep electing him. I doubt he is risking anything by making these statements. He campaigns on these positions to win his Congressional seat.
He won with 60% of the vote in 2006 and the war was an issue that he campaigned on. His democratic opponent got trounced. The GOP has to realize the whether they are right or not on this issue, the voters are turning away from them because of how the Iraq war was handled and don’t trust them for Iran either.
Ron Paul wouldn’t move up rapidly in the polls for many reasons even if he did change his view on this but, I doubt his own district will stop supporting him. The GOP and the members left in it, as few as they are, aren’t going to support him because he will be an ineffective President with the Congress we have. Both parties would sabotage him and they know it.
I think most GOP are hoping Fred Thompson enters for no other reason than they don’t like any of the current batch that well and are hoping he will say something they like that they aren’t hearing now.
The question was asked tonight; would you use tactical nuclear weapons against nuclear weapon sites in Iran.
Paul blasted those who responded in the affirmative. He said Iran is not a threat.
Paul has a decent domestic agenda. But he loses crediblity with comments like that. Iranian leaders blatantly challenge the free world. They have provided weapons for terrorists killing coalition forces in Iraq. They are not only a threat, but an actual enemy proven by actions from 1978 to now.
That didn’t ask the question of what he would do if they attacked an ally or the U.S.
Why should we attack Iran before the make an aggressive move? What justification is there in that you just “believe” they are a threat? How can you justify a war until an aggressive act is done?
Why do you actually believe Iran is a threat? Because they say they will destroy Israel? Or that they want Iran’s oil? Or that they are funneling support to those in Iraq who are fighting their?
Now, that might be justification if you believe that you can prove what we know is going on. But, unlike Iraq, we weren’t in an ongoing war to justify resuming the war.
How would you get U.N. support for a war? They are trying to get that support now, I believe by first using U.N. sanctions that violation of will call for stronger methods but, the American people may not support it.
Iran isn’t a military threat to the U.S. but, probably is to its allies. It might even be a “terrorist” threat to the U.S. but not in a way we could justify going to war with them over because I doubt they will make the same mistake that allowed us to target Afghanistan. They will deny any connections and proving it when the terrorists have blown themselves up will be difficult.
Now, once Iran makes an aggressive act, all gloves are off. Ask Ron Paul what he will do after an attack.
Do you believe that the President has a right to call for preemptive strikes as his legal councils says he does? I do, at least until the Supreme Court rules otherwise but millions of Americans don’t believe he has that right.
Ron Paul may be 100% wrong but millions of American believe Iran isn’t really a threat to us, just others in the Middle-East and right or wrong, they don’t care if he is, even if it is Israel.
The Administration has to lay out a stronger case if they want the voters to support preemptive strikes against Iran or they will really lose badly in 2008. Again, being right doesn’t matter if you can’t convince the voters you are right.
Debate rankings (since there is no thread yet and I forgot my password, I will use this section):
1. Rudy — awesome response right after half time in response to earlier question about what to do if surge fails in Iraq. Rudy admonished liberal Wolf Blitzer to be sure to give equal coverage if the surge is successful. It is telling that the question is always based on the negative…”what will you do when the surge fails” instead of “what will it mean if the American troops succeed in the surge”
2. McCain
3. Hunter
4. Romney
5. Huckabee
6-9. Gilmore, Brownback, T. Thompson, Tancredo
10. Paul — on a planet by himself.
6-10 are only hanging around for the free publicity…all would be better served by dropping out now to let serious candidates get more time to respond to serious questions.
Paul is against pre-emptive war. The only question is whether he would consider an attack on Israel as a threat to us. Based on his responses tonight and congressional votes, I would venture to guess his attitude would be to let Isarael or any other country defend itself.
Bart:
6-10 are only hanging around for the free publicity…all would be better served by dropping out now to let serious candidates get more time to respond to serious questions.
——————
While I wouldn’t mind, a lot of voters for each of these candidates would then sit out the election because “their candidate” was denied the opportunity to present his case fully.
The GOP needs to weed these lesser candidates out in a manner that doesn’t lose the votes they need.
Bart stated:
I would venture to guess his attitude would be to let Isarael or any other country defend itself.
———————
And, unfortunately, so do a majority of voters apparently. The socialists have so altered thinking in this nation towards Israel and defending allies in the last few decades that I don’t trust the voters to make any truly rational decisions anymore.
Debates weed out candidates. I am pleased the GOP put forth a diverse group including a mayor, governors, senators, representatives and possibly an actor. Much better group to choose from than what is offered on the other side.
But with super duper Tuesday only about 7 months out, it is time for some to drop out. The Q2 disclosure report will serve as more reason for 6-10 to get out.
If they withdraw and throw their support to another candidate that will be good. If they are viewed as being forced out, there may be problems getting those voters to vote for the final candidate. You need all the GOP, 11% leaners and another 15% to win in 2008. It will be tough if you lose even a few because they stay home.
With so many now that have been convinced by Democrats that a “preemptive strike” is wrong, Iran becomes a problem too. There are millions of what might be called fiscal conservatives that don’t support our war policies. I am not saying they are right but, we have to face the reality of how much socialists have accomplished over the decades in forming public opinion about these things and especially on top of the view they have that this administration and thus, the GOP, isn’t qualified to handle these situations correctly.
The constant onslaught by Democrats on this President’s policies in Iraq and the Middle East in general, has damaged the entire GOP effort in the Middle East.
How do you convince voters preemptive strikes are justified?
Lefthook
re: Ron Paul
OK so I guess I don’t agree with him on everything. I have to admit privatizing the FAA??
But the only other real choices neocons with high priced think tanks behind them. And right now the neocons have the largest credibility gap and string of failures this country has ever seen!!!!
bb
Why should anybody believe the neocons with regard to Iran? 2 strikes and you’re out as far as I’m concerned. We have to start thinking about the financial security of this country. Anybody who’s studied the “Project for a New American Century” (written in 1997) already knows they want to attack Iran and Syria. And do you really think Israel is unanimous with this stuff?
Jan
re:
“Iran appears to be leading other nations to abandon the dollar and thus can hurt us “legally” by just moving out of the dollar. He doesn’t need to risk an attack on the U.S. other than through the dollar.”
So what created dollar demand in the first place? Not only in the middle east but around the world?? Treaties and agreements, or free market activities based on the desire to hold and use a currency which maintained it’s value vs. thier own currency? Wouldn’t many argue that the status of the dollar as a reserve currency and vehicle for international trade be based on “supply and demand” as opposed to gunboat diplomacy, and treaties? And now “dumping the dollar” is seen as a way to hurt the U.S. economically and defend against U.S. military hegemony in the middle east. And ironically one reason our military is there is to “defend the dollar”. And of course we’re killing the dollar ourselves with massive debts.
And of course everybody in the Middle East knows that if they attack Israel, they’re going to get bombed hard. If we’re going to bomb them anyway, then what have they got to loose?
Assuming there were WMDs in Iraq, it may get to a point where the “Hajis” get sick and tired of trucking them around. Because it would be a lot easier to simply launch them instead. And bombs are great for destroying infrastructure long term, not so great for stopping missiles bound for Israel. And the missile threat is due in large part to the threat we represent to Russia.
Jan Paul,
I am not calling for candidates to be forced out…just that they realize sooner rather than later that they have no chance.
But I would support a debate format where only the top 4 or 5 based on cumulative poll numbers are invited (note the word invited v. allowed) to participate.
It is obvious who amongst the 11 GOPers should withdraw (and will become clearer mid July when disclosure reports are released). 6-10 muster about 5% in the polls…they failed to gen up support, time to let the big dogs roll.
Bart
Be honest you do not want Ron Paul telling the truth about the NEOCONS like you!
LMAO! RuPaul wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him on the ass. He is more worried about finding the real JFK killers than dealing with mundane issues like terrorism.
Bill, regarding the dollar.
Yes, to your comment. Even now, we may be the best currency, but that is in doubt and doubt is what is driving many to leave it.
As the euro and other currencies rise to the dollar, it is simple economics for many to go where they can get more bang for their investments.
I am hearing more say they believe nations that buy our bonds are getting concerned about our debt. Whether the concern is justified or not, they want to move to other things than debt instruments.
The problem they have is that so many “dollars” are coming in, it is hard to find places for all of them besides debt instruments.
So, how this will play out is still up in the air. I see the Canadian dollar is rising even higher again today. From mid 2002 where it was about 65 cents it is at 94.47 cents to the dollar.
But, nobody can really predict when anything will happen. We can look at the trend and say that if it doesn’t change, such and such will happen and be pretty sure it will, but trends change.
Much of this doubt is based on our continually rising debt, unfunded liability, and spending. So, the trend could easily change with entitlement reform, cuts in spending or tax revenues exceeding spending. Most just can’t see those things happening at this time. And, if we are going to spend even more with a war against Iran, I think we risk a panic sale of the dollar by some of the nations.
China has deals with Iran and so does Russia and both are huge holders of the dollar. What would be more expensive to them, losing the money a drop in dollar costs or the rise in oil prices a war with Iran would trigger or should they choose to get involved, military spending (unlikely).
Also, unless authorized by the U.N., could we be the nation facing sanctions and trade restrictions, etc.? I think we are vulnerable in many ways and Iran knows it and that is why they have gotten rid of so many of their dollar reserves by switching to the euro for oil sales and spending dollars on other things beside debt instruments.
quote:
Iran has continued to lower its exposure to the greenback, with US dollar foreign reserves now making up 20% of its total holdings, the BBC reported, citing the head of Iran’s central bank. Iran is encouraging its oil customers to pay for their crude in other currencies such as euros. Iranian industry officials have said 60% of its oil trade with other Opec members is now in non-dollar currencies.
http://www.ameinfo.com/115249.html
That was from March 31 and so it is probably lower now. It isn’t there getting out of the dollar since they aren’t the largest holder, but why they are getting out of it the concerns some. If they get out and do something that caused a rapid drop in the dollar, they would be better prepared than a nation holding a lot of dollars.
If we strike Iran, especially in a preemptive strike that isn’t approved by the largest holders (Japan, China, Russia, OPEC, U.K.), what they do then could destroy the value of the dollar. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ahmadinejad isn’t counting on that fear to keep us from those strikes and why he speaks so boldly.
Jan_Paul,
I spoke to someone the other night who listened to Ahmadinejad speak and read the translation. Appears we might be subject to a con here as Ahmadinejad most definitely wants a regime change in Israel, but he’s not saying he wants an end to Israel. Appears the “controllers” might be intentionally misinterpreting Ahmadinejad to provoke a war. How convenient. And we all know now (I knew then) Iraq was a mistake. As we know our Middle East foreign policy is controlled by Israel, as is our press, this all makes sense! Sure wish we had real Americans controlling our government and media!!!
In part, I agree Hugh. Where I disagree is that Israel controls our Middle East policy. The dollar controls much of it and has for over 30 years. We had to have oil sold in dollars to keep the dollar from collapsing and we were using the Middle East to weaken Russia and thus, we empowered the enemies of Israel.
Had Israel controlled our Middle East policies back then, they wouldn’t have allowed us to arm their enemies and protect them as we did. Now, if you said the CFR/Bilderberg/Trilateral Commission type people controlled or dramatically influenced our foreign policy, I would be more likely to believe it.
Those same people probably control the policies of Israel as well as many other nations. What ties do the European Central Banks of Rothschild descent have to the CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission? Any? Anybody know for sure?
Most administrations we have had have had people directly connected with those organizations advising our Presidents and Congressmen. Look at who is attending the current Bilderberg Meeting besides Gov. Perry of Super Corridor fame, besides regulars like Henry Kissinger, and David Rockefeller.
quote:
Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
Martin Feldstein, president and chief executive officer of the National Bureau of Economic Research
http://freepressinternational.com/secretive-bilderberg-meeting-set-for-turkey
=========================
They have the ear of many in Washington.
Gov. Perry is a rising star.
quote:
Rick Perry has not only been instrumental in the contentious development of the Trans-Texas Corridor– often argued to be necessary infrastructure for regional government under C.F.R. plans for a North American Community and the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP.gov) signed by President Bush– Rick Perry has also privatized TxU (Texas Utilities), handing it off to global investment firms and private control who are heavily invovled in the Bilderberg group.
The $45 billion dollar TxU buyout is no less than the largest buyout ever, and involves at least three firms represented annually at Bilderberg, each characteristic of global investment– Goldman Sachs, represented by its Chairman Peter D. Sutherland (also Chairman of British Petroleum [BP]), Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. (KKR) represented by Henry R. Kravis, founder and partner, and Credit Suisse First Boston represented by Chairman and CEO Ronald S. Lloyd.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/010607Perry.htm
===========================
The General Luti, is an interesting person too. He was talked about even before we entered Iraq as a source of intel information the President relied on. Some believed he was too friendly with some agents of foreign powers. Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what goes on in the world of “intelligence?”
So, what we hear about Ahmadinejad will be suspect to those who have the same suspicions they have now about the Iraq Intel.
Does anybody really know what is going on?
Bush is gunning for Iran and Syria, plain and simple. And what’s so pathetic is the entire world has already read the PNAC playbook.
Jan_Paul, in your post #28 you stated:
“Where I disagree is that Israel controls our Middle East policy.”
Jan, I read Walt and Meirsheimer’s “The Israel and U.S. Foreign Policy”. I agree with their thesis. Have you read their article? I’ve also read many other works along the same line. I do very strongly believe Israel and her proxies have undue influence here in the U.S. via their overwhelming control of our media and impact on our government.
All I am saying is that there may be some people higher than Israel controlling both there policies and ours. They have a “shadow government” just like we do and Banking, CFR, Bilderbergs, and Trilateral Commission are all friends of it. And maybe strongly influence is the proper terminology, not control.
Ever notice that when leadership in Israel and here change, some things don’t change. Not just in things dealing with Israel but many nations, especially those under the Central Banking fellowship in Europe and the U.S. and the people in the Bilderbergs and Trilateral Commission. They have no “power,” per se, but tremendous influence. As Rothschild stated
quote:
Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild, as he now called himself, reigned as the supreme financial power in London. He arrogantly exclaimed, during a party in his mansion, “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”
=====================
That is easily true when your nation owes $9 trillion on a GDP of $13 trillion. Israel owes 81 billion on a GDP of $121.6 billion.
We are within 2% of each other on debt to GDP and that means we both owe our bankers a lot of respect and probably bow to their wishes more than most voters realize.